Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Distillers Trading Corporation Ltd. on 4 September, 1981
cites
Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960
Mr. Wadhera referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Burma Shell refineries Ltd. v. ITO [1966] 61 ITR 493 (Bom), where the expression "mineral oil" has been discussed. After setting out the various definitions of the term, the court expressed the opinion that it was wide enough to include petroleum in its crude form as well as the products obtained from the crude oil by refining. That court, however, was not concerned with the question with which we are faced in the present case. They had to decide whether a company engaged in refining crude oil could be said to be a company engaged in the manufacture or production of mineral oil and they held that for the purpose of a provisional assessment, the department had to proceed on the basis that it was claimed by the assessed.
Section 2 in The Petroleum Act, 1934 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Petroleum Act, 1934 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Petroleum Act, 1934 [Entire Act]
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Harbans Lal Malhotra & Sons Private Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer, "C" Ward And Anr. on 23 April, 1971
The learned Judicial Member, however, took a different view. He pointed out at the outset that a mistake apparent from the record must be a mistake which is obvious and patent and not something which could be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions, but in the opinion of the learned Judicial Member that was not the position in the present case. While it was true that ethyl alcohol was not extracted from the earth by any mining operations, the words "mineral oil" cannot be absolutely restricted to petroleum extracted as a result of mining operations. The Websters Third New International Dictionary defines the words "mineral oil" as the general name for petroleum and other oils distilled from it. The Term was, therefore, wide enough to cover ethyl alcohol. The learned Member also pointed out that both petroleum and ethyl alcohol were inflammable substance and that the plant and machinery used for storing them were similar and there was no reason why depreciation should not be allowed at the higher rate of 10%. At any rate he thought that this was a case in which there could conceivably be two opinions on the question whether the assesseds case was covered by the special entry referred to earlier. referring to the case of Harbsons Lal Malhotra and Sons Private Ltd. v. ITO [1972] 83 ITR 848 (Cal), the learned Judicial Member concluded that the provisions of s. 154 could not be applied to the present case. The applicability of the entry referred to above required in the first instance an interpretation of the expression "mineral oil" and, secondly the determination of the factual question whether plant and machinery used by the assessed-company for storing ethyl alcohol was similar to the machinery and plant used for storing petroleum and allied products. He, therefore, held that there was no mistake apparent from the record which could be corrected by the ITO by recourse to s. 154.
The Inflammable Substances Act, 1952
T. S. Balaram, Income Tax ... vs M/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Vice-President and the learned Judicial Member of the Tribunal to the effect that the matter is not one which can be sought to be rectified under s. 154 is correct. The question at issue is not one which is capable of a debate and simple answer but raises aspects which requires arguments and debate and is one which there can be, legitimately and reasonably, more than one opinion. It is not necessary to elaborate on the case-law as to the circumstances in which a rectification is permitted under s. 154 of the Act. It is well settled that this section can be invoked only to correct what are clear and patent mistakes apparent from the record. It is, of course, not necessary that the rectification should be only clerical or mathematical mistakes. It is also not necessary that the rectification should be only of a question of fact and not of a question of law. It is also possible for the provision of s. 154 to be applied where the provisions of a section or a rule have been overlooked that where the issue on which a rectification is proposed is one which involves a debatable point of law or where it involves the interpretation of a statutory provisions and there is a reasonable scope for more than one kind of interpretation being placed on the provision in question the remedy of rectification will not be available. It is sufficient for us to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50, which clearly enunciates the scope of this provision.
1