Back
MD. NIZAMUDDIN
Ena Chaudhuri – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-30, Kolkata – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Md. Nizamuddin, J. - Heard Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. None appears for the respondents.
3. By these Writ Petitions, petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 24th March, 2014 in respect of Assessment Years 2007-008 and 2008-09 respectively, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, under Section 264 of The Income Tax Act, 1961, rejecting the petitioner's applications under the aforesaid section of the Act.
4. Case of the petitioner in brief is that petitioner is an old lady of advancing age and being unaware of the technicalities of the income tax law, committed mistake in her return by including the exempted income in question relating to dividend and long term capital gain as income payable to tax and such mistake was realised by her only upon receipt of the orders passed under Section 143 (1) of The Income Tax Act, 1961, and it is her case that since the filing of original return itself was delayed no revised return could be filed by her under Section 139 (5) of the Act for claiming deduction of the income exempted from income tax which was included as taxable income due to bonafide mistake and having no other recourse like fi
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of the application for revision under Section 264 was erroneous in law, and the claim of the petitioner under Section 10(38) sho....
The court established that the Commissioner has the authority to rectify inadvertent mistakes in tax assessments under Section 264, even after the time limit for revised returns has expired.
The court emphasized the Commissioner's obligation to consider the merits of a revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, especially in cases of technical errors affecting tax clai....
The revisional authority under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act can rectify bona fide errors in a return filed by an assessee, despite the initial refusal to amend.
The court ruled that the Commissioner must consider the merits of a revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and the inclusion of all rele....
The court established that an intimation under Section 143(1) can be treated as an order for revision under Section 264, emphasizing the assessing authority's duty to consider refund claims based on ....
Time spent pursuing an erroneous appeal is excluded under the Limitation Act, allowing for the timely filing of a subsequent Revision Petition.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Commissioner should consider the sufficient cause for the delay in preferring the application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, esp....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
