TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court orders petitioner to file fresh application with AAR within 2 weeks, stay proceedings.</h1> The Court ordered the petitioner to file a fresh application with the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) within two weeks. Pending this decision, all ... Withdrawal of application for Advance ruling - Held that:- Since the Authority for Advance Rulings (Income Tax), New Delhi, on 23-2-2016, in its proceedings has clarified that they did not see any reason in not permitting the withdrawal of the application filed by the petitioner, the hearing of the application filed by the Revenue and objecting to the course adopted by the petitioner also being kept pending, the petitioner's application, which is allowed to be withdrawn and treated to be disposed of as withdrawn has not been, therefore, adjudicated on merits. We record the statement made by Mr. Pardiwalla, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instructions, that within two weeks from today the petitioner shall file a fresh application raising all necessary and relevant questions before the Authority for Advance Rulings (Income Tax), New Delhi.If such an application is filed, the said Authority shall decide it in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. Issues:Challenge to show cause notice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Compliance with Circular of Central Board of Direct Taxes; Maintainability of the writ petition.Analysis:The writ petition challenges a show cause notice issued without compliance with Circular dated 28-8-2014, under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner had approached the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) seeking clarification on tax liability in a transaction. The AAR suggested modifications to the application, leading the petitioner to seek withdrawal to file a revised application. Despite this, a show cause notice was issued, prompting the petitioner to question the jurisdiction and timing of the notice.The petitioner argued that the Revenue should have awaited the revised application as suggested by the AAR, and the show cause notice was premature and lacked jurisdiction. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the petitioner was delaying tax liabilities through legal maneuvers and that the Revenue was within its rights to issue the notice, seeking ex post facto approval for compliance with Circular requirements.After hearing both sides, the Court decided not to delve into larger controversies but focused on the immediate issue. The Court ordered the petitioner to file a fresh application with the AAR within two weeks, which would be decided promptly. Pending this decision, all proceedings related to the show cause notice were to be stayed. Failure to comply would result in the notice being adjudicated on its merits, allowing the petitioner to raise all contentions, including jurisdiction and compliance with Circular.The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the arguments presented, leaving the AAR to decide the matter independently. The judgment disposed of the writ petition based on the outlined directions, emphasizing the need for the AAR to consider all contentions raised before it without influence from the Court's directions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
