Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Bhopal Versus Smt. Seema Suryavanshi, M/s Dilip Buildcon Limited, Shri Dilip Suryavanshi and another

2016 (7) TMI 1219 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Proceeding with the matter for settlement under section 245-D(2)(3) - Held that:- We find that merely because the application filed under section 245-D(1) has been admitted and the Report of the Department under section 245-D(2) has not been considered, no case is made out for interference. The matter is still pending before the Settlement Commissioner, the petitioner can raise all the grounds before the Settlement Commissioner, including the objection as are raised in the writ petition, and it .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7-7-2016 - Shri Rajendra Menon, Acting Chief justice; and, Shri Anurag Shrivastava. JJ. Shri Sanjay Lal, Counsel for the petitioner (s). Shri Sumit Nema with Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Counsel for the respondent (s). O R D E R As common questions of law and fact are involved in all these three writ petitions filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) MP, Bhopal, they are being heard analogously. For the sake of convenience, pleadings and documents available in the record of Writ Petit .....

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 purposes of settling the issue with the Income Tax Department. It is said that after the applications were filed under section 245-C on 12.3.2015, the Settlement Commissioner passed an order under section 254-D(1) on 24.3.2015 allowed the application to be proceeded with. After the application was so allowed, notices were issued to the petitioner/Department for submitting their report under section 245D(2B) vide Annexure P/2 on 24.3.2013. The Report as required was submitted by the Department .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

artment is unsustainable and in support thereof reliance is placed on the cases of Bombay High Court and Delhi Court: Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commissioner (ITSC), (2014) 267 CTR 0007 (BOM); and, Marc Bathing Luxuries Limited Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission and Another, (2013) 94 DTR 0241 (DEL), to say that the order passed under section 245-D(2C) without taking note of the Report of the Department is unsustainable and the prayer made is that the matter .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

where the matter is pending and the Settlement Commissioner can still take note of the same. 5. Further reliance is placed on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore Vs. Asian Natural Resources India Limited, (2015) 63 taxman.com 169 (MP), wherein similar question was considered and an order was passed admitted an application under section 245-D(1), challenge to which made by the Department, was disposed of with liberty to the Department to raise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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