Back
ANITA SUMANTH
Shriram Auto Finance, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, Vikram Mankal, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue aWrit of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in C.No.217/264/Pr.CIT-1/2017-18 and quash the impugned order dated 07.02.2019 and direct the 1st respondent in PAN:AAWFS0763Q pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13 for granting the deduction/tax exemption U/s.10(38) of the Act in the computation of taxable total income.)
1. The petitioner challenges order dated 07.02.2019, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax/R1 rejecting an application for revision filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'Act') for assessment year 2012-13 filed on the ground of delay as well as on the merits of the matter.
2. The petitioner had filed a return of income within time wherein it claims to have inadvertently failed to seek exemption under Section 10 (38) of the Act in respect of shares sold in the stock exchange through recognised stock exchange brokers.
3. In fact, the claim of exemption, according to the petitioner, is in order insofar as the required security transaction tax has been paid and hence the entire capital gain is exempt in terms o
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 Commissioner of Income Tax has the jurisdiction to consider the merits of a claim for deduction of exempted income in a revision application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even if....
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 the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to exclude the time spent in prosecuting the appeal without jurisdiction, and the entitle....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to exclude time spent in prosecuting a proceeding bona fide in a court without jurisdicti....
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 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....
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
