Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.25 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
T. S. Balaram, Income Tax ... vs M/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971
"5. I find from the order u/s 154 of the I.T.Act,
passed by the A.O. on 30-05-2013 that he has
merely rejected the contentions as not acceptable.
There is no reasoning in the rectification order, nor
even a mention of the mistake alleged in the
rectification order. Moreover, the issue of whether
provisions and reserves are allowable or not will
depend on the nature of provision or reserve and
each matter has to be looked into in detail and
independently. This would require detailed
examination of the matter and such issues do not
come as glaring mistakes within the purview of
Section 154 of the IT Act. The Supreme court in the
case of T.S.Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers 832
ITR 50 (SC) has clearly laid down that mistake
apparent on the face of the record must be an
obvious and a patent mistake. It is held that
"mistake apparent from the record" cannot be
something which would have to be established by a
long drawn process of reasoning on points, on which
there may be conceivably two opinions.
Section 36 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1