Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)Cit vs Mahavir Drilling Co. on 4 October, 2004
In the case of CIT Vs. Mahavir Drilling Co. (supra), investment allowance
claimed by the assessee on drilling machines was granted by the AO. The AO later
realised that the investment allowance could not have been claimed by the assessee
on the drilling machine or in other words, it was noticed that the same was wrongly
granted. However by order dated 19-10-1992, the AO withdrew the benefit of
investment allowance by taking recourse to the provisions of rectification.
Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.,, ... vs The Addl. Cit, Range-1,, Baroda on 31 January, 2023
6. After giving thoughtful consideration to the material on record the Bench is
of the considered opinion that the issue involved in the appeal is not with regard to
merits of addition but whether such addition could be made by learned AO by
exercising powers u/s 154 of the Act. The matter of fact is that learned AO had
accepted the return filed u/s 139 of the Act vide intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act
dated 24.11.2019. The same was based on the tax audit report in form no. 3CB and
3CD. Thus, the question of delay in deposit of the employees' contribution was
4
ITA No. 2988/Del/2022
very much in the assessment records upon which the intimation u/s 143(1) was
served upon the assessee. As at relevant time there was law in favour of assessee
allowing such expenditure so it has to be concluded that assessee was benefited by
same and failure to follow a divergent view in favour of Revenue cannot be
considered to be an error apparent on record and thus learned AO was not justified
to substitute his opinion by invoking provision of Section 154. The question of
relying any judgment in favour of Revenue to invoke section 154 powers is not
manifested from the order u/s 154 and thus the learned CIT(Appeals) too erred to
sustain the order on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. case (supra).
C.I.T vs N.C.Budharaja And Co on 7 September, 1993
On the date of rectification i.e., on 19-10-1992, the
decision in N. C. Budharaja (supra) was not rendered by the Supreme Court,
therefore, invocation of provisions of section 154 was not justified.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1