Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Skf India Ltd.,Mumbai vs A.C.I.T. Rg.4(3), Mumbai on 24 March, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH "E", MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No.377/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2000-01) (Arising out of ITA No.7544/Mum/2011) SKF India Limited vs ACIT-4(3), Mumbai (Since May 19, 2004, name has Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai been changed from SKF Bearings India Ltd.) Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Building, Netaji Subhash Road, Charni Road, Mumbai-400002 PAN :AAACS0684H APPLICANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Ms. Sailee Gujarati, CA Revenue by : Shri Himanshu Joshi (SR. DR.) Date of hearing : 13/02/2026 Date of pronouncement : 24/03/2026 Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM:
The instant Miscellaneous Application (in short, 'MA') is filed by the assessee against the order of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench 'E' bearing ITA No.7544/Mum/2011 date of order 25.02.2025.
2. The Ld. AR has advanced her argument and stated that the MA was filed with a delay for 120 days. The Ld. AR stated that the original order passed by the 2 MA No.377/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.7544/Mum/2011) SKF India Ltd.
ITAT on 25.02.2025 which was received by the assessee on June 2025. Accordingly, the assessee is liable to file the MA by 31.12.2025. The assessee has filed the application on 29.12.2025. Respectfully considering the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Accost Media LLP vs DCIT (2026) reported in 308 Taxman 411 (Bom.) date of order 01.12.2025 held Where assessee received ITAT's order on 24-3-2025 and filed rectification application on 16-7- 2025, limitation of six months for filing such application commenced from date of communication of order and not date of order itself; accordingly, application was within time and order treating it as time-barred was liable to be quashed.
3. The Ld. DR argued but had not made any strong objection against the submission of the assessee.
4. In our considered view, we find that the order was duly communicated and served to the assessee on 6th June 2025. Considering the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court the assessee has filed MA within six months from the end of the month the order was received. So, the delay for filing appeal for 120 days is duly condoned and the appeal is taken for adjudication.
5. The objection has been raised by the Ld. AR in MA that the Bench has passed the order without following the order of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT- Kolkata and had not distinguished the same. The mistake is apparent from the record of the appeal. The Ld. AR submitted the written contention which is reproduced as below:-
"Mistake - Non-consideration of binding judicial precedent:
"8. The Applicant submits that the issue under question is squarely covered by the jurisdictional coordinate bench of Mumbai ITAT in the favour of the assessee. The said decision was submitted 3 MA No.377/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.7544/Mum/2011) SKF India Ltd.in the compilation of judicial precedents vide paper book dated 29 December 2024 (Page No. 53
to 63). Further, the same was also cited during the appeal hearing by the counsel. The assessee submits that its case is squarely covered by the decision binding decision of Mumbai ITAT in the case of DCIT v Supreme Industries Limited (2008) 2 TMI 899. As per the said decision, no adjustment is required to be made to book profits in relation to tax on distributed dividend
9. The Revenue has not produced any decision contrary to the same.
10. The said decision is neither cited, nor distinguished in the impugned order.
11. Hence, non-consideration of decision rendered by Co-ordinate Bench on identical issue would amount to mistake apparent from record.
12. The Applicant also wishes to place reliance on the below judicial precedents (submitted in the paperbook dated 11 February 2026 which upheld that non-consideration of a binding judicial precedent is a mistake apparent from record and deserves rectification under section 254(2) of the Act (Kindly refer to page number as referred in the paperbook):
1 Honda Seil Power Products Ltd vs CIT (2007)295 30-33 2 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax-2(1), 34-48 Mumbai (2017) 88 taxmann.com 812 (Mumbai) [2007] 183 TTJ 388 (Mumbai) [18-11-2016]
13. In view of the above, the Applicant submits that the impugned order should be rectified to allow ground no. 9 in the favour of the assessee based on above submissions.
Mistake-Misinterpretation and incorrect distinction of a judicial precedent:
14. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Kolkata ITAT in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle XIX, Kolkata v. BalarampurChini Mills Ltd. [2007] 109 ITD 146 (Kolkata). In the said case, it was upheld that tax on profit distributed as dividend under section 115-0 is allowable as deduction in computation of book profit for purpose of section 115JB. In arriving at thesaid conclusion, the Hon'ble ITAT made comparison between fringe benefit tax and distribution of profit as per section 115-0 of the Act. However, the case clearly dealt with tax on distributed dividend under section 115-0 of the Act and its addition to book profits. Hence, the same was squarely applicable to the present case.4
MA No.377/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.7544/Mum/2011) SKF India Ltd.
15. However, in the impugned order (at page 17 of the impugned order), it is mentioned that "... the dividend distribution tax (DDT) under section 115-0 does not constitute a fringe benefit tax"
while ruling against the assessee.
16. Hence, the assessee submits that the said decision is incorrectly distinguished and misread. Hence, the same deserves to be rectified."
6. The Ld. DR argued and respectfully relied on the order of the ITAT Mumbai Bench.
7. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. We find that the tribunal has adopted the order of the ITAT Kolkata in the case of ACIT vs Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. 109 ITD 146. After the said adoption the tribunal had made a mistake and taken a wrong observation from the said order of the Coordinate Bench. We find that the said mistake apparent from the record and accordingly we considering the assessee's submission the Ground No.9 of the original order of tribunal is duly recalled. Further respectfully considering the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs CIT reported in (2007) 295 ITR 466 (SC) has held that the purpose of section 254(2) is to ensure that no party suffers on account of mistake committed by the tribunal and that the tribunal is duty bound to rectify any mistake apparent from the record which causes prejudice to either party. In the present case, we are satisfied that the observations recorded in the impugned order in Ground No.9 recalled reconsideration in light of the order of Coordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and to rectify the apparent mistake on record, we recall the Ground No.9 of the order of tribunal 5 MA No.377/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.7544/Mum/2011) SKF India Ltd.
for adjudication the issue afresh. Accordingly, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed.
8. In view of the above the order dated 25.02.2005 is in Ground No.9 is recalled and appeal is ordered to be restored to its original no. in situ. The registry is also directed to issue a fresh notice of hearing of both the parties.
9. In the result, the assessee's MA No. 377/Mum/2025 is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24/03/2026 Sd/- Sd/-
(MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनां क/Dated: 24/03/2026 Saumya Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु CIT
4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मु बंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. गाडफाइल/Guard file.
BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, Mumbai