Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.31 seconds)Section 11 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Aditanar Educational Institution vs Additional Commissioner Ofincome-Tax on 5 February, 1997
Therefore, in the petition filed by the assessee for rectification of the said mistake, the Tribunal, after taking into account the fact that the claim of the assessee was on the basis that during the current year no part of income of the trust was utilised or applied either directly or indirectly for the benefit of any specific person; the earlier order was passed on the basis that advance of Rs.25 lakhs was given during the period 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002, which was not the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question and also taking into account the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported in Aditanar Educational Institution Vs. Additional CIT referred to supra, held that there is a mistake apparent on record in the earlier order passed by the Tribunal. . On the basis of the above finding, the Tribunal held that the assessee had not violated the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act during the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question and on that basis, rectified the order passed by it earlier.
Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Express Newspapers Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax. on 31 January, 1997
In view of the said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, once again, we perused the entire materials available on record, in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India referred to above and also the other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and referred to by the Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in Express Newspapers Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax ((2010) 320 ITR 12), to find out whether the Tribunal has committed any error in rectifying the earlier order passed by it on the ground that there was an error apparent on the face of the record and we found none. Section 254(2) of the Act has been enacted not only to safeguard the interest of the assessee but also to enable the Tribunal to rectify the error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed by this court in the above tax case appeals are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Section 12AA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Director Of Income Tax vs Bharat Diamond Bourse on 16 December, 2002
(b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was a mistake apparent from the record inasmuch as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adithanar Educational Institution Vs. Additional CIT reported in 224 ITR 310, which deals with exemption under section 10(22) of the Act, was not considered while deciding the appeal filed by the Revenue, when in fact the later decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Bharat Diamonds Bourse reported in 259 ITR 280 relied upon by the Tribunal in the original order was very much on the issue raised?
1