Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 109 (2.42 seconds)
Documents citing Sidhramappa Andannappa Manvi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay on 28 August, 1951

Shantilal Rawji vs M.C. Nair, Iv Income-Tax Officer, E ... on 1 April, 1958

4. The contention of the Department is that looking to the provision of section 18A(6) there was a statutory obligation upon the Income-tax Officer to charge penal interest and there was a clear error of law on the face of the record when the Income-tax Officer failed to carry out his statutory obligation and it was open to the Income-tax Officer under section 35 to rectify that error. We do not agree with Mr. Palkhivala that the error contemplated by section 35 must be an error of fact. It is true that in Sidhramappa v. Commissioner of Income-tax we were dealing with an error of fact but there is nothing i the language of section 35 to suggest that the error contemplated by that section must necessarily be an error of fact. It can be an error of law. If all the facts are on the record and no further elucidation or ascertainment is necessary and if on those facts it is clear that the Income-tax Officer has rectified under section 35. Mr. Palkhivala's contention is that inasmuch as the Income-tax Officer has not deletion his contention is that inasmuch as the Income-tax Officer has not dealt in his assessment order with this aspect of the matter at all it is not dealt in his assessment order with this aspect of the matter at all it is not a case of rectification it is rather a case of revision or review. We are unable to accept that argument. An error of law may consist of deciding a particular point contrary to the clear provision of a statute. It maybe equally due to ignorance or overlooking of the clear provisions of the statute. It is difficult to understand why if the Income-tax Officer acts contrary to law and says so in his assessment order that error could be rectified under section 35; but if he overlooks of clear provision of the law and fails to give effect to that provision of the law, it should not be considered as a mistake and it cannot be rectified under section 35. An error of law is an error of law, whether the error consists in the failure to carry out a statutory duty imposed upon the officer or in acting in a manner which is contrary to the mandate of the Legislature; and in this case if the statute required the Income-tax Officer to impose a penal interest upon the assessee and that obligation is clear from the record than the failure to discharge that obligation would be an error which would be susceptible of being correct and rectified under section 35.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Berger Paints India Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 12 August, 1993

In the present case, as aforesaid, we are concerned with the interpretation of the expression "to amend any order passed by it under sub-section(1)" with a view to rectifying any mistake, and therefore, we are not required to dwell ourselves on the cases cited at the Bar which deal with the meaning and scope of expression "mistake apparent from the record" and for that purpose what constitutes "record", (see Maharana Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO; ITO v. Ashok Textiles Ltd.; Kil Kotagiri Tea & Coffee Estate Co. v. ITAT; Anchor Pressing Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT; CIT v. Shakuntala Rajeswar; CIT v. ITAT and Anr.; Neeta S. Shah v. CIT; Lakshmi Electric Corpn. v. CIT; Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT; CIT v. ITAT and Ors.; CIT v. ITAT supra) or what is the starting point of limitation for computing period of limitation of "four years" for the purpose of rectification (see Bihar State Road Transport Corpn. v. CIT & Kutti-krishnan Nair v. ITAT supra) or "amend" (see CIT v. Mita Lal Ashok Kumar; CIT v. ITAT, & CIT v. ITAT supra) or brought to its notice by either party or suo motu power of the Tribunal to correct any error or its inherent powers (see Shiv Deo Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab; Mrs. KTMS Uma Salma v. CIT; Kuttikrishnan Nair v. ITAT; Sitaramappa Ananthappa Manvi v. CIT; ITO v. Singer Singh & Sons; & ITO v. ITAT supra) or power of the Tribunal to set aside its Final Order passed on appeal ex-parte (see CIT v. ITAT supra) or opportunity to be heard to be accorded to both sides while dealing with an application for rectification (see case of Smart Pvt. Ltd. v. ITAT supra) or with the cases dealing with the theory of Merger (see case of Vedantham Raghaviah v. Third Addl.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 56 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Hitesh Ashok Vaswani on 2 November, 2023

A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record-see Sidhramappa v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay [1952]21ITR333(Bom) . The power of the officers mentioned in Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to correct "any mistake apparent from the record" is undoubtedly not more than that of the High Court to entertain a writ petition on the basis of an "error apparent on the face of the record''.
Gujarat High Court Cites 85 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs U.P. Forest Corporation on 8 September, 2000

In the case of Sidharamappa 'Andannappa Manvi v. CIT (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has'held that the power of Tribunal under Section 35 of the Indian IT Act, 1922 to rectify its own mistake on its'own motion is a larger power than the power to rectify on the application of a party. It was further held by the Hon'ble Court that the power is not confined to mere rectification of a mistake which is patent on the record. According to Hon'ble Court, after the mistake is corrected, it has the power to pass all consequential orders. The relevant portion of the observations of the Hon'ble Court is extracted below :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... vs Darabji Brothers & Co. on 8 November, 1982

Similarly, the decision of the Bombay High Court in Sidhhrammappa Andannappa Manvi v. CIT [1952] 21 ITR 333 (Bom), which refers to a decision of the Lahore High Court, in B.C.G.A. (Punjab) Ltd. v. CIT [1937] 5 ITR 279, holding that so long as there is a ray of hope left in the assessee to recover a debt, it cannot be considered to be a bad debt is also of help to the Revenue.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Ito, Ward-5(3),, Hyderabad vs Shri Krishna Kumar D Shah, Huf, ... on 16 May, 2023

A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record--see Sidhramappa AndannappaManvi v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1952] 21 ITR 333 (Bom.). The power of the officers mentioned in section 154 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, to correct "any mistake apparent from the record" is undoubtedly not more than that of the High Court to entertain a writ petition on the basis of an "error apparent on the face of the record." In this case it is not necessary for us to spell out the distinction between the expressions "error apparent on the face of the record" and "mistake apparent from the record". But suffice it to say that the Income-tax Officer 23 was wholly wrong in holding that there was a mistake apparent from the record of the assessments of the first respondent.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 73 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ito, Ward-5(3), Hyderabad, Hyderabad vs Brij Gopal P.Shah, Huf, Hyderabad on 16 May, 2023

A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record--see Sidhramappa AndannappaManvi v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1952] 21 ITR 333 (Bom.). The power of the officers mentioned in section 154 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, to correct "any mistake apparent from the record" is undoubtedly not more than that of the High Court to entertain a writ petition on the basis of an "error apparent on the face of the record." In this case it is not necessary for us to spell out the distinction between the expressions "error apparent on the face of the record" and "mistake apparent from the record". But suffice it to say that the Income-tax Officer 23 was wholly wrong in holding that there was a mistake apparent from the record of the assessments of the first respondent.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 73 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next