Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Calcutta Steel Co. Ltd. on 9 April, 1980

Munjal Showa Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 7 September, 2000

10. 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 opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record. This view finds support from various decisions including the decisions in (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) (supra), CIT vs. Calcutta Steel Co. Ltd. (1988) 174 ITR 521 (Cal), CIT vs. K. Subnani Construction Co. Ltd. (1989) 177 ITR 219 (Bom), Sagar Co-op, Central Bank Ltd. vs. CIT (1985) 186 ITR 292 (MP) and CED vs. Hari Bux Poddar (Decd.) (1990) 182 ITR 423 (Pat).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Munjal Showa Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 7 September, 2000

9. 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 opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record. This view finds support from various decisions including the decisions in (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) (supra), CIT v. Calcutta Steel Co. Ltd. (1988) 174 ITR 521 (Cal), CIT v. K. Subnani Construction Co. Ltd. (1989) 177 ITR 219 (Bom), Sagar Co-op, Central Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1985) 186 ITR 292 (MP) and CED v. Hari Bux Poddar (1990) 182 ITR 423 (Pat).
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Star Paper Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 26 December, 1991

11. We would like to refer the latest decision of the Calcutta High Court which is now in CIT v. Calcutta Steel Co. Ltd. [1991] 191 ITR 691. In this decision, Their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court have held that the question whether the estimate of advance tax was true to the knowledge of the assessee or not, was a question of fact, that the Tribunal had referred to all the facts brought on record and arrived at the conclusion that the assessee's estimate was not false and that the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

East West Rescue Pvt. Ltd. vs Dy. Cit, Spl. Range 14 on 5 March, 2004

39. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court also explained the terms 'mistake apparent from the record' in the CIT Vs. Calcutta Steel Co. 174 ITR 521. IN that case the order of ITO was sought to be rectified. The Hon'ble Court has observed that a decision on debatable point of law cannot bea mistake apparent from the record. The observation of the Hon'ble court on this point are as under :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

J.L. Morison (India) Ltd., Kolkata vs Assessee on 30 June, 2014

It must be glaring, obvious or self evident mistake. If it is a mistake which requires to be established by complicated process of investigation, argument or proof, it cannot be regarded as a mistake apparent from record. It should be one which could be discerned with same proposition after a judicial probe into the assessment records without long drawn process of reasoning and always no two reasonable contrary opinions are conceivable. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Calcutta Steel Co. Ltd. (1985) 153 ITR 488 (Cal) has categorically held that a mistake apparent from record must be an obvious mistake 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 opinions. Here in the present case before us also that is the value of the property i.e. the land in question, as accepted by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Act, is not accepted by the AO while carrying out rectification u/s. 154 of the Act for the reason that the valuer has computed the building portion while computing fair market value of this property but he failed to understand that the building portion also includes a portion of land admeasuring about 39396 sft and even otherwise the valuation is a highly debatable issue. Hence, the rectification carried out by AO on the basis of valuation report consists of two opinions and assumption of jurisdiction by invoking section 154 of the Act is without legal sanction. Accordingly, we quash the orders of the lower authorities and this issue of assessee's appeal is allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1