Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (1) TMI 46 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2016 (1) TMI 46 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Revision of assessment - Best Judgment assessment - Section 22(6) - Held that:- As seen from the best of judgment order as well as the impugned order, there were 8 discrepancies pointed out. Out of them, the appellant/ assessee has chosen to admit their liability in respect of three items. In respect of three other items, the Assessing Officer granted relief in favour of the assessee. Hence, what was left behind was only two issues out of the total of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Respondent : Mr. S Kanmani Annamalai, AGP (T) ORDER Judgment was delivered by V. Ramasubramanian, J The assessee has come up with the above writ appeal challenging an order of the learned Judge dismissing their writ petition as against an order of assessment on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 2. Heard Mr.R.L.Ramani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant. Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the respondent. 3. The appella .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

differences and discrepancies. Thereafter, a best of judgment assessment under Section 22(4) was passed, after issuing a proposal for the revision of assessment. 5. Without challenging the revised order of assessment dated 29.12.2014 by way of an appeal, the assessee filed an application under Section 22(6) on 29.4.2015. Accepting the contention of the assessee in respect of three out of five items of dispute (there were 8 items of dispute in total), the respondent granted relief. But, in respec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dy of appeal is available under the statute. But, this rule is not without exceptions. 7. In the case on hand, the decision taken by the Assessing Officer in respect of manufacturing loss is clearly contrary to the judgment of this Court in M/s. Interfit Techno Products Ltd. Vs. Principal Secretary [(2015) 81 VST 389]. This Court has already held that there cannot be a uniform rate in respect of invisible loss in relation to all types of manufacturing processes. But, by the impugned order, a uni .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rt of their claim. 9. But, the case of the appellant is that after six months of filing an application under Section 22(6), the impugned order came to be passed without even calling upon the appellant to produce the books of accounts. Therefore, the appellant pitches their claim on the ground of violation of reasonable opportunity to defend their case. 10. However, it is contended by Mr.S.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Additional Government Pleader that nothing prevented the appellant from filing th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version