Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (3.15 seconds)
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.,, New ... vs Dcit, Circle-1, Ltu, New Delhi on 10 February, 2022 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jabalpur vs Keshri Metal Pvt. Ltd., Raipur on 18 March, 1999

7. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. Ld. Sr. DR submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that there was discrepancy regarding the figure disclosed in Profit & Loss Account regarding leave encashment and the figure stated and certified by the Auditor in his audit report. Ld. Sr. DR submitted that case laws as relied by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are not applicable under the facts and circumstances of the present case. She further submitted that in the case of CIT vs Keshri Metal Pvt.Ltd. (supra), the facts were different as in that case, there were references outside the record wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such approach of AO was not permissible under the law. However, in the case in hand, the AO has unequivocally pointed out discrepancy in the figure disclosed by the assessee and certified by the Tax Auditor. Ld.Sr.DR submitted that both these figures are part and parcel of records.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 35 - Full Document

Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde And ... vs Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale on 25 September, 1959

In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and Ors. v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale this Court while spelling out the scope of the power of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ruled that an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 568 - Full Document

M/S Ammonia Supplies ... vs M/S Modern Plastic Containers ... on 4 September, 1998

4 SCC 5951 and 'Ammonia Supplies Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Modern Plastic Containers Pvt. Ltd.' [AIR 1998 SC 3153]. by which it was held in the former judgment that rectification of an order stems from fundamental principle that justice is above all. It is exercised to remove the error and not for disturbing finality. In the latter judgment, it was held that rectification connotes something what ought to have been done but by error is not done and what ought not to have been done was done requiring rectification. Rectification, in other words, is the failure to comply with the directions under the Act. Therefore, it is apposite and clear that the power under Sec. 154 can be invoked only to correct an error and not to disturb a conclude finding.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 97 - A P Misra - Full Document
1