Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 250 (1.44 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ramesh Electric And Trading Co. on 6 November, 1992

Dabur India Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 29 September, 1997

19. The learned Departmental Representative also placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. (supra) wherein it is held that failure of the Tribunal to consider arguments is not an error apparent from record, although it may be an error of judgment. The ratio of this decision is also not applicable to the facts of the case before us, as nowhere in the miscellaneous application the assessee has requested to consider some of the arguments advanced by the assessee which were not considered by the Tribunal. In that case, in the miscellaneous application, the assessee contended that the Tribunal did not consider some of the arguments advanced by the assessee and the Tribunal entertained this application and exercised its power of rectification under s. 254(2). This is not the legal and factual position in the case before us and it has already been discussed in clear terms that the Tribunal does not have any power to review its own order under the provisions of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Corrosion Roadlines vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 13 September, 2004

The same cannot be rectified under Section 254(2) of the Act, in view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. (1993) 203 ITR 497 (Bom). The reason is that merely because the Tribunal has considered and has not allowed a claim, even if the conclusion is wrong, that will be no ground for moving an application under Section 254(2), unless it can be said that there is a mistake apparent from the face of the record. In the garb of an application for rectification, it is not open for the assessee to reopen and reargue the whole matter. Unless there is manifest error which is obvious, clear and self-evident, the provisions of Section 254(2) of the Act cannot be resorted to. What can be rectified under Section 254(2) of the Act is a mistake which is apparent and patent. The mistake has to be such for which no elaborate reasons or inquiry is necessary. What is not permitted to be done by the statute having deliberately omitted to confer review jurisdiction on the Tribunal, cannot be indirectly achieved by recourse to rectification proceedings contained under Section 254(2) of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Riddhi Siddhi Comm. Co. Ltd , Mumbai vs Assessee on 24 February, 2014

carefully. On perusal of the record we find that on identical facts and circumstances assessee has field the earlier two applications which are running into 21 pages. It again filed the present miscellaneous application which is running into 10 pages. It has reiterated all the facts and arguments which have been raised during the course of hearing of appeals. We on the strength of Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Ramesh Electric Trading Company, 203 ITR 497 has taken into consideration the principles propounded by the Hon'ble High Court, which are required to be kept in mind while appreciating the issue, regarding finding out of apparent mistake, if any committed by the Tribunal while exercising the powers under section 254(2) of the Act. Let us consider the apparent mistakes pointed out by the assessee in the present miscellaneous application. The first apparent mistake pointed out in the miscellaneous application is that notice under section 143(2) was issued beyond the period of 12 months from end of the month in which returns have been filed. We have already dealt with this issue while disposing of the earlier miscellaneous application. The second mistake pointed out by the assessee is that the Tribunal has not considered the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench reported in 36 ITD 247, wherein it has been held that section 68 cannot be invoked in respect of repayment of loans. The Tribunal in the present case has considered this issue in para 17 of its order disposing the appeal of the revenue. The Tribunal has totally disbelieved this story of repayment of loans and emphatically held that it is the assessee's money which has been routed through bogus paper entities to give a colour of genuine transaction exhibiting the advancement of loan and its re- payment, where is the ratio applicable in the present case. The decisions of the co-ordinate bench or of the higher authorities are not required to be referred in routine way. They are to be applied if identical sets of facts are available. In the next mistake it has been pointed out that the Tribunal has violated the principle of natural justice. We find that it is again reiteration of the arguments raised at the time of original hearing of appeals. There is no apparent mistake pointed by the assessee. A number of arguments not connected with issue have been raised in the miscellaneous application moreover assessee has filed one miscellaneous application whereas the Tribunal has decided two appeals of the Revenue and disposed of two miscellaneous applications. Any way even if we ignore this technicality, there is no merit in the contentions of the assessee, therefore, it is dismissed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sharon Ashok Ranpise,, Pune vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 19 August, 2019

4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The grievance of the assessee as stated in M.A. is that the Tribunal while upholding the order of AO with respect to addition of Rs.7.50 lacs has observed that the requirement of Sec.68 of the Act were not proved by assessee but has ignored the provisions of Sec.132(4A)(ii) of the Act. With respect to the cost of renovation of four flats where the addition has been restricted to Rs.50 lacs as against Rs.30 lacs estimated by Ld.CIT(A), it is the contention of assessee that the contentions raised by assessee before AO and Ld.CIT(A) have not been considered. It is a settled law that the power of rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act can be exercised only when the mistake which is sought to be rectified is an obvious and patent mistake which is apparent from the record, and not a mistake which requires to be established by arguments and a long drawn process of reasoning. Further, the Tribunal cannot in exercise of its power of rectification, look into some other circumstances which would support or not support its conclusion so arrived at. The mistake which the Tribunal is entitled to correct is not an error of judgment but a mistake which is apparent from the record itself. In the present case, Ld.CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs.30 lacs as against Rs.1.50 crore made by the AO and before the Tribunal, assessee has also not placed any material on record to substantiate the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards the renovation cost of flats and it is also a fact that against the additions upheld by Ld.CIT(A), assessee was not in appeal. We are thus of the view that there is no mistake which is apparent from the record. Further, the Tribunal has no power to review its own order as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. (1993) 203 ITR 497 (Bom.).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nazneen Farooq, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 4 July, 2018

4. Perusal of the relevant paras reveals that the order was passed after considering the submissions of the ld. AR for the assessee and the material on record. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal is limited while considering the application under section 254(2). The Tribunal has no power to appreciate the facts and evidence and to review its order in the application under section 254(2). Similar observation was held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Ramesh Trading Company (supra). Therefore, the prayer made in the application has no substance under law and deserve dismissal.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next