Gkn driveshaft v. ito 2003 259 itr 19 sc

Author: djgx

August undefined, 2024

WebFeatures: Designed to transfer the engine's rotational power through the transmission. Provides the same look, fit and function as the original factory part. Helps restore your … WebITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) and to pass a separate order to deal with the objections- Renders the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer ultra vires. [S. 148] The AO without making any order disposing of the objections filed by the Appellants, proceeded to make an assessment order dated 26th March, 2004.

Ujagar Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) – itatonline.org

WebDec 24, 2009 · Wel Intertrade (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. ITO (2009) 308 ITR 22 19. Tribunal having concluded that all the material facts were fully and truly disclosed by the assessee at the time of original assessment, invocation of provisions of S. 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant asst. year was not valid. http://expertspanel.in/index.php?qa=48139&qa_1=notice-to-nri-u-s-148-in-continuation jeep revolution

259+itr+19+(SC) Indian Case Law Law CaseMine

Webgkn driveshafts india ltd vs ito 2003 259 itr 19 sc. N: Seeks to amend Notification No. 61/94-Customs (N.T.) dated the 21st No... H: Validity of order issued u/s 73 (9) with DRC … WebApr 17, 2024 · The Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Limited v. ITO(2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) had clarified that the Assessing, Officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. The term ‘reasonable time’ is interpreted by the High Court of Delhi, in the case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. CIT (2009) 308 ITR … Web2.1 The Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) has laid down the procedure to challenge the reassessment proceedings. When a … jeep rer radio

Devansh Exports vs. ACIT (ITAT Kolkata) – itatonline.org

gkn driveshafts india ltd vs ito 2003 259 itr 19 sc

WebMar 16, 2024 · The Hon’ble Supreme court in GKN Drive Shafts’ case reported in 259 ITR 19 (SC), clarified the procedure to be followed, when notice is issued under Section 148. Therefore, the petitioner has to follow such procedure including by asking the reasons for reopening the assessment. WebJul 6, 2024 · 2.1 The Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v/s D.C.I.T. (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) has laid down the procedure to challenge the reassessment proceedings. When a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is issued, the proper course of action (a) is to file the return , lagu kakak tua berasal dariWeb(2003) 259ITR19(SC), has observed that where notice under Section 148of the IT Act is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file the return and if he so desires, … jeep rental skagway ak

"WebGKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). III. Reasons – Recorded to be supplied 4. Reasons for notice must be given and objections of assessee must be considered. ... G.N. Shavo (Wine) (P) Ltd. vs. ITO & Anr (2003) 260 ITR 513 (Cal) 20. AO who allowed assessee is claim for deduction under S. 80HHD was well above of ... " - Gkn driveshaft v. ito 2003 259 itr 19 sc

Gkn driveshaft v. ito 2003 259 itr 19 sc

Reassessment Proceedings under the Income-tax Act, 1961

WebMar 9, 2024 · The Hon’ble Supreme court in GKN Drive Shafts’ case (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) : 2003 TaxPub (DT) 734 (SC), clarified the procedure to be followed, when notice is issued under section 148. Therefore, the petitioner has to follow such procedure including by asking the reasons for reopening the assessment. WebIndian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Did you know?

WebThe Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC), has observed that where notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file the return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing the notices. Web(2003) 259ITR19(SC), has observed that where notice under Section 148of the IT Act is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file the return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing the notices. The AO is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time.

Web1.In GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd, Supreme Court held that when a notice under section 148 of the Act is issued, the proper course of action for the assessee is to file the return and if he so desires, to seek the reasons for issuing the notice. 2. If sought for, AO is bound to furnish the reasons within a reasonable time. WebMay 28, 2016 · CIT (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) providing reasons for reassessment within a reasonable time, and therefore respectfully following the decisions cited above, the reassessment completed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 of the Act cannot be sustained in the case of the assessee and quashed. ( (i) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.

WebDec 20, 2024 · Re-assessment order passed in violation of guidelines laid down by the Supreme court in the case of GKN Driveshaft Ltd. is bad in law- ITAT. ABCAUS Case …

WebITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) and to pass a separate order to deal with the objections- Renders the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer ultra vires. [S. 148] The …

WebThe Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), inter alia, contains the provisions for assessment of income whereby the assessing officer (“the AO”) scrutinises the return of income filed by an assessee and makes an assessment to determine the income chargeable to … lagu kaka main salah lirikWebFeb 15, 2012 · The Assessing Officer despite the judgment of the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd., [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC) has... ITR 19 ( SC ). The Assessing … jeep restorationWebThe principal grievance of the petitioners is based on the judgment of the apex court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO reported in [2003] 259 ITR 19. The law laid down by the apex court in this judgment is that when a notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act is issued, the noticee is expected to file the return and if he ... jeep rhinoWebJan 31, 2002 · 3. In our considered opinion, the petitioner is not justified in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court at this stage. The writ petition is premature and is … jeep rhdWebITO and Ors. (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). The petitioner once again wrote on 17th Feb., 2003, contending that the reassessment had been initiated at the behest of the A.G. Audit party and in light of the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Adani Exports v. Dy. CIT(1999) 240 ITR 224 (Guj) it was submitted that the proceedings be dropped. jeep rezvani tankWebJun 25, 2024 · The Tribunal noted that in the context of reassessment proceedings, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 … lagu kalah kuakui aku kalahWebWhether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble JM was justified in setting aside the matter back to the file of the AO for readjudication as per the decision of the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO & Ors. (2003) 179 CTR (SC) 11 : (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) or the Hon'ble AM was justified in holding that as … jeep rhino rack backbone