Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The HC quashed the respondent's order rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing a third revised income tax return claiming a refund. The delay arose from inadvertent errors in the Form 3CD audit report regarding the due dates for provident fund contributions, which were the Chartered Accountant's mistakes. The court held that the petitioner was not responsible for these errors and that the delay should have been condoned under section 119(2)(b) to allow the refund claim under section 36(1)(va). The respondent's reliance solely on Circular No. 9/2015 was found improper. The matter was remanded for a fresh de novo consideration, directing the respondent to condone the delay within twelve weeks, thereby preventing disallowance of the provident fund contributions as time-barred under section 36(1)(v).
The HC quashed the respondent's order rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in filing a third revised income tax return claiming a refund. The delay arose from inadvertent errors in the Form 3CD audit report regarding the due dates for provident fund contributions, which were the Chartered Accountant's mistakes. The court held that the petitioner was not responsible for these errors and that the delay should have been condoned under section 119(2)(b) to allow the refund claim under section 36(1)(va). The respondent's reliance solely on Circular No. 9/2015 was found improper. The matter was remanded for a fresh de novo consideration, directing the respondent to condone the delay within twelve weeks, thereby preventing disallowance of the provident fund contributions as time-barred under section 36(1)(v).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
