Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.27 seconds)Section 35B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. on 11 October, 2006
In the case of CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. [2007] 293
ITR 163/159 Taxman 122 (Delhi), their Lordships while considering the
powers of the Tribunal under s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961 observed as under:
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Pearl Woollen Mills on 2 July, 1996
7. We may herein also note that in the case of CIT v. Pearl Woolen Mills [2011]
330 ITR 164/[2010] 191 Taxman 286 (Punj. &Har.), Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High
Court have accorded similar findings which reads as under:
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Culcutta vs Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd on 14 February, 1989
13. Further, the order of the Tribunal is to be read in a whole and not in a
piecemeal manner. For this purpose, we place reliance on the judgment of
Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P.) Ltd.
[1989] 176 ITR 535/43 Taxman 45 wherein held that the decision of the
Tribunal has not to be scrutinised sentence by sentence merely to find out
whether all facts USP have been set out in detail by the Tribunal or whether
some incidental fact which appears on the record has not been noticed by the
Tribunal in its judgment. If the court, on a fair reading of the judgment of the
Tribunal, finds that it has taken into account all relevant material and has not
taken into account any irrelevant material in basing its conclusions, the
decision of the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with, unless, of course,
the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse. It is not necessary for
the Tribunal to state in its judgment specifically or in express words that it
has taken into account the cumulative effect of the circumstances or has
considered the totality of the facts, as if that were a magic formula; if the
judgment of the Tribunal shows that it has, in fact, done so, there is no reason
to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal.
T. S. Balaram, Income Tax ... vs M/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971
I. T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers*[1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC)
DB
"A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake
and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of
reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. As
seen earlier, the High Court of Bombay opined that the original assessments
were in accordance with law though in our opinion the High Court was not
justified in going into that question.
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde And ... vs Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale on 25 September, 1959
In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde
v. MallikarjunBhavanappa Tirumale [I960] 1 SCR 890, 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.
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 Andannappa Manvi v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1952] 21
ITR 333 (Bom.). The power of the officers mentioned in section 154 of the
Income-tax Act, 1961, to correct "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." In this case it
is not necessary for us to spell out the distinction between the expressions
"error apparent on the face of the record" and "mistake apparent from the
record". But suffice it to say that the Income-tax Officer was wholly wrong
in holding that there was a mistake apparent from the record of the
assessments of the first respondent.''