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 Upholds Tax Benefit for Petitioner, Emphasizes Fair Treatment</h1> <h3>M/s. Craftsman Automation P Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax – II, The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Race Course Road, Coimbatore.</h3> M/s. Craftsman Automation P Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax – II, The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. - ... Issues:1. Rejection of application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2004-05.2. Denial of benefit of deduction under Section 80JJAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Reopening of assessment and failure to allow substantive benefits during reassessment.4. Interpretation of procedural formalities and substantive benefits under the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue 1: Rejection of application under Section 264:The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 26.03.2008, where the 1st respondent dismissed the application filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2004-05. The petitioner claimed the benefit of deduction under Section 80JJAA of the Act through a revised return, which was refused by the 2nd respondent. The High Court observed that the denial of substantive benefit based on technical failures was unjustified, especially considering that the assessment itself was reopened by the 2nd respondent. The court held that the petitioner should be entitled to the benefit of Section 80JJAA, and directed the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on merits, ignoring the delay in filing the returns.Issue 2: Denial of benefit under Section 80JJAA:The 1st respondent rejected the application for deduction under Section 80JJAA, citing technical grounds such as failure to file the return within the prescribed time limit and non-furnishing of the required certificate. The court emphasized that denial of substantive benefits to an assessee due to procedural formalities was unjust. It referred to relevant case laws and highlighted that powers vested under Section 264 should be utilized to ensure fair treatment and grant of legitimate benefits to the assessee. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders, considering the substantive benefits due to the petitioner.Issue 3: Reopening of assessment and failure to allow substantive benefits:The assessment for the Assessment Year 2004-05 was reopened with a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, jeopardizing the original assessment completed in 2006. The court noted that during reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer should consider and grant reliefs due to the assessee, including benefits that were available but not previously factored in. The court highlighted that the powers under Section 264 were essential to rectify situations where substantive benefits were denied due to technical failures or procedural lapses.Issue 4: Interpretation of procedural formalities and substantive benefits:The court analyzed the significance of procedural formalities like filing returns within prescribed timelines and furnishing necessary documents under the Income Tax Act, 1961. It emphasized that denial of substantive benefits based solely on technical failures was unjust, especially when the assessment itself was reopened. The court stressed that the legislative intention was to grant legitimate benefits to an assessee and that technical failures should not hinder the grant of such benefits. The judgment underscored the importance of fair treatment and just application of tax laws to ensure that rightful benefits are not denied to taxpayers.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the court, focusing on the denial of benefits, procedural formalities, and the role of Section 264 in rectifying unjust treatment of taxpayers under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found