Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>High Court rules in favor of Private Limited Company in Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme case.</h1> <h3>Radha Vinyl Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Income-tax And Another</h3> Radha Vinyl Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Income-tax And Another - 2014 (310) E.L.T. 490 (A. P.) , [2014] 364 ITR 199 (AP) Issues:1. Rejection of declarations filed by the assessee under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998.2. Validity of appeal filed by the petitioner before the appropriate appellate authority.3. Interpretation of the provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998.4. Justifiability of the order rejecting the declaration under the Scheme.Issue 1: Rejection of Declarations under the SchemeThe petitioner, a Private Limited Company, challenged the order rejecting its declarations under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. The Commissioner of Income-tax had intimated the petitioner that the declarations were rejected as there was no valid appeal filed by the petitioner before the appropriate appellate authority. The petitioner argued that the rejection was arbitrary, unjust, and illegal as the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit under the Gift Tax Act.Issue 2: Validity of AppealThe appeal in question was initially addressed to the Commissioner of Gift Tax (Appeals-II) but later appeared to have been changed to Deputy Commissioner of Gift Tax (Appeals-II) in the covering letter. The authorities received the appeal papers on 14.07.1993, and the appeals were pending as of 31.03.1998. The contention was raised that since there was no Deputy Commissioner of Gift Tax (Appeals-II) for companies, the appeal filed by the petitioner was not valid. However, the court noted that there was no denial of the fact that the appeal was filed, and the delay in disposing of the appeal was not attributable to the petitioner.Issue 3: Interpretation of Scheme ProvisionsThe Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 was introduced to settle tax arrears locked in litigation. The petitioner made a declaration under the Scheme to settle tax dues related to a pending gift tax appeal. The authorities rejected the declaration on the grounds of no valid appeal being filed. The court emphasized that technical errors in addressing the appeal should not invalidate the submission, especially when the petitioner was not informed of any deficiencies in the appeal filing process.Issue 4: Justifiability of Rejection OrderThe court found that the rejection of the declaration by the authorities was not justified. It was observed that the petitioner had made efforts to comply with the Scheme requirements, including depositing the tax arrears. As a result, the court allowed the writ petition, set aside the rejection order, and directed the Commissioner of Income-tax to process the petitioner's declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998. The court also instructed that if tax arrears were deposited, they should be credited accordingly in the decision-making process under the Scheme.In conclusion, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing procedural fairness and the petitioner's efforts to adhere to the Scheme's requirements. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the merits of declarations under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, and ensuring that technical discrepancies do not impede legitimate attempts to settle tax arrears through the Scheme.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found