Direct reference to Supreme court u\/s 257 in case of divergence of opinion amongst High court.
1408\/CBDT Dated:- 21-7-1981 Order-Instruction
Income Tax
INSTRUCTION NO. 1408\/CBDT
\n Dated: July 21, 1981
\nAttention is invited to the Boards instruction No.1020 (F.No.277\/15\/75- ITJ) dated 5th November, 1976 whereby the Commissioners were directed that while scrutinising the orders of the appellate Tribunal for filing reference application u\/s.256(1) they should instruct the Departmental Representatives to request the Tribunal to make a direct reference to the supreme court u\/s.257 if there are conflicting decisions of two or more High Courts on any particular question of law. Further even in a reference sought by the assessee the Depa<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ng u\/s.34(1)(a) o the 1922 Act the ITO cannot bring to charge an item of income falling under clause b in such reassessment proceedings initiated beyond the period of four years under clause(a). According to the court a notice of reassessment cannot be issued after the period of 4 years in respect of items of income falling under clause(b) and the ITO cannot assume jurisdiction indirectly by issuing a notice purporting to be under clause(a). As against this view, Andhra Pradesh High court in the case of Pulavarthi Visvanadham and recently in the case of subakaran Gangabhishan dissented from Madras and Bombay view and held that once the assessment was reopened validly no distinction could be made between items falling under clause(a) and tho<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Direct reference to Supreme court u\/s 257 in case of divergence of opinion amongst High court.1408\/CBDT Dated:- 21-7-1981 Order-InstructionIncome TaxINSTRUCTION NO. 1408\/CBDT Dated: July 21, 1981 Attention is invited to the Boards instruction No.1020 (F.No.277\/15\/75- ITJ) dated 5th November, 1976 whereby the Commissioners were directed that while scrutinising the orders of the appellate Tribunal for … Continue reading “Direct reference to Supreme court u\/s 257 in case of divergence of opinion amongst High court.”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-294","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/294","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=294"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/294\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=294"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=294"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=294"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n