2020 (3) TMI 550

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he petitioner that the same should have been approved with effect from 01.04.2017. 3. The ground for not approving the facility of the petitioner with effect from 01.04.2017 is that the petitioner had submitted Form 3CK only on 27.04.2018. 4. Relying upon Clause 5(i) of the Guidelines for approval in Form 3CM under Section 35(2AB) of Income Tax Act, 1961, the respondent contends that the application seeking approval in Form 3CK should have been filed on or before 31.03.2018 for the approval to be granted from 01.04.2017. Reliance in this regard is made on the judgment dated 20.04.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.13338/2009, titled Apollo Tyres Ltd., Kochi vs. Union of India. 5. On the other hand, the lear....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not specifically denied the allegation of the petitioner with respect to the portal of the respondent not working, however, has submitted that even the physical copies of the application forms were being accepted by the respondent. 7. The petitioner in answer asserts that in accordance with Clause 8 of the Guidelines, Form 3CK, in the physical form, could have been submitted only under the signatures of the Managing Director. As the Managing Director of the petitioner was not available in India from 08.03.2018 till 25.04.2018, the Form 3CK could be submitted with the respondent in the physical form only on 27.04.2018. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. 9. As noted hereinabove, the sub....