Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.29 seconds)
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.,, New ... vs Dcit, Circle-1, Ltu, New Delhi on 10 February, 2022
cites
Section 250 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
T. S. Balaram, Income Tax ... vs M/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971
[1999] (3) TMI 11 (SC). Further, reliance was placed on the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TS Balaram, ITO Company Circle IV,
Bombay vs Volkart Brothers and Others [1971] (8) TMI 3 (SC).
Section 143 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jabalpur vs Keshri Metal Pvt. Ltd., Raipur on 18 March, 1999
7. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and
supported the orders of the authorities below. Ld. Sr. DR submitted that
there is no dispute with regard to the fact that there was discrepancy
regarding the figure disclosed in Profit & Loss Account regarding leave
encashment and the figure stated and certified by the Auditor in his audit
report. Ld. Sr. DR submitted that case laws as relied by the Ld. Counsel
for the assessee are not applicable under the facts and circumstances of
the present case. She further submitted that in the case of CIT vs Keshri
Metal Pvt.Ltd. (supra), the facts were different as in that case, there were
references outside the record wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
such approach of AO was not permissible under the law. However, in the
case in hand, the AO has unequivocally pointed out discrepancy in the
figure disclosed by the assessee and certified by the Tax Auditor. Ld.Sr.DR
submitted that both these figures are part and parcel of records.
Sidhramappa Andannappa Manvi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay on 28 August, 1951
A decision on a debatable
point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record-see
Sidhramappa v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay.
Section 116 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
S. Nagaraj And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. on 26 August, 1993
12. Moreover, we have come across two judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in 'S.Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka' [(1993)
10 | P a g e
ITA No. 5326/Del/2018
Supp.
M/S Ammonia Supplies ... vs M/S Modern Plastic Containers ... on 4 September, 1998
4 SCC 5951 and 'Ammonia Supplies Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
v. Modern Plastic Containers Pvt. Ltd.' [AIR 1998 SC 3153]. by
which it was held in the former judgment that rectification of an
order stems from fundamental principle that justice is above all.
It is exercised to remove the error and not for disturbing finality.
In the latter judgment, it was held that rectification connotes
something what ought to have been done but by error is not
done and what ought not to have been done was done requiring
rectification. Rectification, in other words, is the failure to comply
with the directions under the Act. Therefore, it is apposite and
clear that the power under Sec. 154 can be invoked only to
correct an error and not to disturb a conclude finding.
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde And ... vs Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale on 25 September, 1959
In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde and Ors. v.
Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale this Court while spelling out
the scope of the power of a High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution ruled that an error which has to be established by a
long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may
conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error
apparent on the face of the record.