Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.29 seconds)Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 254 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 12A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 12 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mahakoshal Ceramics vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 27 September, 1982
After going through these cases, we find that the same are distinguishable on facts. So far as the case of Mahakoshal Ceramics (supra) is concerned, the issue in that case related to the order of the Tribunal, which was passed on the application for withdrawal. It was held by Hon'ble High Court that section 154 provides that a rectification can be done only if there is an error apparent on the face of record. It was also held that the withdrawal of appeal amounted to a statement made by the assessee that the appeal was not competent and in dismissing the appeal as withdrawn, the Tribunal dismissed appeal as not competent. Under these circumstances it was held that merely because by reason of subsequent decision that the view of law had changed, it could not be said that there was an error apparent on the fact of record.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Zafrul Hassan Iraqi Itat, Jaipur Bench on 26 October, 1998
3. CIT v. ITAT (1992) 196 ITR 8381 (Ori).