The moot question is, therefore, the disposal of the objections by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order dated 26th March, 2004 constitutes sufficient compliance with the procedure prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra) or, whether it was necessary for the Assessing Officer to have first disposed of the Appellant’s objections by passing a speaking order and only upon communication of the same to the Appellants, proceeded to reopen the assessment
In my experience as a dispenser of Justice, I have noticed that generally the violations of tax laws by new assessees do not occur because they are so desired but because of sheer lack of proper advice. Instead of letting these sparks of economic change stifle and die due to fear of compliances, I firmly believe for the detailed reasons set out hereinabove that they be urgent ly assisted in the interests of the State. Such sparks may be reflected at times in part time enterprising housewives, illiterate, semi-skilled men/women or teenagers. I would seriously exhort and urge the State through the tax administration to provide a platform specially created to assist these ventures to remain relevant and tax compliant
It is thus seen that the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 had initially inserted sub-section (6) in section 115JB of the Act to provide that the provisions of section 115JB shall not apply to income accrued or arising on or after 1-4-2005 from any business carried on, or services rendered, by an entrepreneur in a unit of SEZ or a developer of SEZ. Thus, a company carrying on the specified business in a unit in SEZ or as a developer of SEZ was not liable to pay MAT on the profits derived from the said business. However, the Finance Act, 2011 brought-in a sunset clause and inserts a proviso to sub- section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub- section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried on in an SEZ unit with assessment year 2012-13 and onwards
In Homi Phiroz Ranina & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., the complaint was filed for delay in remitting the tax deducted. The applicant has taken stand that he was non- executive Director of the company and they are also practising advocates and, therefore, they are prohibited under the law to act as full time directors. They could only act as non-executive directors not exercising administrative powers or peforming administrative duties. It is held that unless the complaint discloses a prima facie case against the applicant/accused of their liability and obligation as principal officers in the day to day affairs of the company as Directors of the company, the applicants cannot be prosecuted for the offences committed by the company and held that it will be a travesty of justice to prosecute all the Directors if the offence is committed without their knowledge
Since the notice under section 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional notice, any inherent defect therein cannot be cured under section 292B of the Act. A notice under section 148(1) of the Act would be a valid notice if the jurisdictional Assessing Officer records the reasons for reopening the assessment as contemplated under subsection (2) of section 148 and thereafter the same officer namely the jurisdictional Assessing Officer issues the notice under section 148(1) of the Act.
Recent Comments