9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 767X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 7 of 2010 dated 27.10.2010 insofar as circular dated 27.10.2010 clarified that once the approval has been granted under sub-clause 4 of Clause 23-C of Section 10 of the Act, there is no necessity to accord subsequent approval unless the approval is withdrawn by the competent authority and further petitioner has not been afforded opportunity of hearing and the same is violative of principles of natural justice. - Writ Petition No. 6715 (M/B) of 2013 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2013 - Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma And Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra,JJ. ORDER Rejoinder affidavit filed today is admitted to record. Heard Sri S.M.K. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vaibhav Pandey, Counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.D.Chopra, learned Counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 197/44/2001-ITA-I) dated 30th August, 2001, CBDT granted exemption for the Assessment Years 1997-1998 to 1999-2000. Later on the said exemption was extended vide consolidated order No. CC/LKO/B/15/Vol.-XXVI/2007-08/2185 dated 23rd July, 2008 covering Assessment Years 2000-2001 to 2011 to 2012. Thereafter, SIFPSA filed an application in Form No. 56 for approval under Section 10 (23C) (iv) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 on 27th July, 2011. Sri S.M.K. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that during the course of the proceedings initiated by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow on an application dated 27.7.2011 preferred by the petitioner, the petitioner has preferred an applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. Elaborating his submission, Sri Chaudhary has submitted that petitioner has wrongly preferred an application for renewal of approval for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 on 25.7.2011 and on knowing this fact, he preferred an application for withdrawal of the application dated 25.7.2011 but the Chief Commissioner proceeded with the matter and rejected the petitioner's application dated 25.7.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application for rectification, which too was rejected on the grounds that as accumulation of income in a particular year could not utilized in the succeeding five years. Submission is that even assuming that the petitioner could not utilized the accumulation of income in the particular year, the authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
