Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC affirmed the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition, holding the appellant's claim untenable because relevant records were destroyed and statutory TDS provisions were inapplicable for significant portions of the claim, rendering issuance of an accountant's certificate in Form 26A practically unenforceable. The court agreed the grievance for FY 2009-10 to 2012-13 did not attract the proviso to Section 201, which took effect on 01.07.2012, and upheld findings of default in non-deduction of tax. The HC also endorsed the Single Judge's view that the petition was time-barred by the decade-long delay. The court noted an ITAT remand for AY 2013-14 but observed no subsequent proceedings were placed on record.
The HC affirmed the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition, holding the appellant's claim untenable because relevant records were destroyed and statutory TDS provisions were inapplicable for significant portions of the claim, rendering issuance of an accountant's certificate in Form 26A practically unenforceable. The court agreed the grievance for FY 2009-10 to 2012-13 did not attract the proviso to Section 201, which took effect on 01.07.2012, and upheld findings of default in non-deduction of tax. The HC also endorsed the Single Judge's view that the petition was time-barred by the decade-long delay. The court noted an ITAT remand for AY 2013-14 but observed no subsequent proceedings were placed on record.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
