- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court Rules That It Is Important To Get Latest Address Updated In PAN Card In Case Of Any Changes
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Supreme Court has passed a judgment recently that it is important for income tax payers to get their latest address updated in the PAN database. If this has not been done, the Income Tax assessing officer would be justified in sending notices under Section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 to the old address and income tax payers cannot escape by claiming that...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Supreme Court has passed a judgment recently that it is important for income tax payers to get their latest address updated in the PAN database.
If this has not been done, the Income Tax assessing officer would be justified in sending notices under Section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 to the old address and income tax payers cannot escape by claiming that they didn’t receive the notice on their new address, according to a Supreme Court judgment.
Income tax notice under Section 143 (2) is sent to the assessee when the Income Tax department finds any minor or major discrepancies in the income tax return. These discrepancies may include under-reporting or over-reporting of losses.
In PCIT versus IVen Interactive Limited, the Supreme Court’s judgement dated October 18, 2019, it has been clarified that “mere mentioning of the new address in the return of income without specifically intimating the Assessing Officer with respect to change of address and without getting the PAN database changed, is not enough and sufficient”.
The Supreme Court has clarified that notices under Section143(2) of the 1961 Act are issued on selection of case generated under automated system of the Income Tax Department which picks up the address of the assessee from the database of the PAN.
Therefore, the change of address in the database of PAN is must, the Supreme Court judgment has stated.
In case of change in the name of the company and / or any change in the registered office or the corporate office and the same has to be intimated to the Registrar of Companies in the prescribed format, the judgment has stated.