Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Baljeet Jolly vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 2 August, 2000

Van Oord Dredging And Marine ... vs Dy. Director Of Income Tax on 15 March, 2007

In the case of Smt. Baljeet Jolly v. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 113. Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that where an error' is not self-evident it ceases to be an apparent error, the so-called inaccuracies or wrong recording of facts as alleged were not patent mistake which constitute the sine qua non for exercise of power under Section 254(2) of the Act. Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts including that of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra which are binding on the Tribunal, we hold that in the facts of the case, the assessee could not establish any mistake apparent from the record in the order of the Tribunal with regard to ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of the assessee and accordingly the MA of the assessee with regard to this issue has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer vs Bir Engg. Works [Alongwith Misc. Appln. ... on 14 February, 2005

13.2. This issue also came to be considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Baljeet Jolly v. CIT (2001) 250 ITR 117 (Del), where the Hon'ble High Court held that powers of the Tribunal to rectify an errors are limited only to rectify mistakes, which were apparent from record. Mistakes discovered by a complicated process of investigation, argument and proof did not fall within the purview of Section 254(2) of the IT Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 80 - Cited by 32 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next