Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing Asian Techs Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 26 July, 1996

Metal Rolling Works Ltd, Mumbai vs Cit(A)-47, Mumbai on 31 May, 2017

of the relevant provisions of the Act in a proceeding u/s 154 of the Income tax Act, 1961. A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinion. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court, in the case of Asian Techs Ltd Vs. CIT (243 ITR 262 @ 266-267) has held that section 154 does not enable an order to be reversed by revision or by review, but permits only some error which is apparent on the face of the record to be corrected. It was further held that the plain meaning of the word "apparent" is that it must be something which appears to be so ex-facie and it is incapable of argument or debate.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 22 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

K.K.J.Foundations vs The Assistant Director Of Income Tax ... on 27 June, 2014

10. The learned counsel has invited our attention to the judgment in 'Asian Techs Ltd. v. C.I.T., Cochin' [2000 KHC 846] and contended that the mistake apparent from record is not a clerical or arithmetical error alone that comes within its purview but it also comprehends errors which, after judicious probe into the record from which it is supposed to emanate are discerned. But, after considering the factual circumstances in the said case, this Court found that the mistake to be rectified must be one apparent from the record and a decision rendered on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. Further, it was held that the word "apparent" must be something which appears to be so ex facie and it is incapable of argument or debate and therefore it follows that a decision on a debatable point of law or fact or failure to apply the law to a set of facts which remains to be investigated cannot be corrected by way of rectification. Therefore, according to us, the said judgment would not render any assistance to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.
Kerala High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - A Dominic - Full Document

M/S. Delite Properties Pvt. Ltd.,, ... vs Ito, Ward - 7(3), Kolkata, Kolkata on 6 June, 2018

"when revenue had thought fit to allow 90% of the claim there was no reason to reject the balance 10%. The court confirmed the order of Tribunal that held that both AO and CIT(A) had no material on record to reject the claim. Once AO held that 90% of expenditure of this nature is liable to be accepted there was no reason to restrict the claim to 90% alone and disallow 10%. It was also held in the case of Asian Techs Limited vs CIT 103CTR 101 that when substantial part of expenses incurred has been admitted as incurred, AO was not justified to disallow a small portion thereof by resorting to estimate.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 7 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1