Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.38 seconds)Section 80M in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80L in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80T in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 71 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Orissa Cement Ltd And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Orissa And Ors. Etc. Etc on 4 April, 1991
It is, no doubt, true that a mistake capable of being rectified under Section 154 is not confined to clerical or arithmetical mistakes. On the other hand, it does not cover any mistake which may be discovered by a complicated process of investigation, argument or proof. As observed by the apex court in Master Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1966] 17 STC 360, an error which is apparent from record should be one which is not an error which depends for its discovery on elaborate arguments on questions of fact or law.
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde And ... vs Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale on 25 September, 1959
A similar view was also expressed in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, . It is to be noted that the language used in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, "the CPC"), is different from the language used in Section 154 of the Act. Power is given to various authorities to rectify any mistake "apparent from the record" under Section 154 of the
Act. In the Civil Procedure Code, the words are "an error apparent on the face of the record". The two provisions do not mean the same thing. The power of the Tribunal in Section 154 to rectify "any mistake apparent from the record" is undoubtedly not more than that of the High Court to entertain a writ petition on the basis of "an error apparent on the face of the record."
T. S. Balaram, Income Tax ... vs M/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971
(see T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. ). "Mistake" is an ordinary word but in taxation laws, it has a special significance. It is not an arithmetical error which, after a judicious probe into the record from which it is supposed to emanate is discerned. The word "mistake" is inherently indefinite in scope, as to what may be a mistake for one may not be one for another. It is mostly subjective and the dividing line in border areas is thin and indiscernible. It is something which a duly and judiciously instructed mind can find out from the record. In order to attract the power to rectify under Section 154, it is not sufficient if there is merely a mistake in the order sought to be rectified. The mistake to be rectified must be one apparent from the record. A decision on a debatable point of law or a disputed question of fact is not a mistake apparent from the record. The plain meaning of the word "apparent" is that it must be something which appears to be so ex facie and it is incapable of argument or debate. It, therefore, follows that a decision on a debatable point of law or fact or failure to apply the law to a set of facts which remains to be investigated cannot be corrected by way of rectifications. On the facts of the present case, we find that there was no mistake apparent from the record which could be rectified under Section 154 the Act. We find that as the Tribunal proceeded to deal with the matter as if it was dealing with an appeal regarding computation of income. It referred to various provisions to work out the details. It is to be noted that in the order under Section 154 the Income-tax Officer observed that in his opinion Section 71 is not relevant to the provision (Section 80M) regarding allowability of deductions mentioned in Chapter VI-A, On the other hand, the Tribunal while working out the figures observed in paras. 7 and 8 of the order as follows :