Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (2.03 seconds)Dcit, New Delhi vs Shri Ram Hari Ram & Sons Pvt. Ltd., New ... on 9 June, 2017
In our view, an order rejecting an application for
4
MA No. 15/Asr/2017
DCIT v. Surja Ram & Sons
rectification under s. 254(2) is not available to be rectified under s. 254(2), The
same may relate to an appeal, but is not an order passed by the Tribunal under
sub section (1) of s.254. As indicated above, the assessee's application for
rectification under s. 254(2) was rejected by the Tribunal. The second application
was for rectification of some alleged mistakes in the said order of rejection.
Section 254(2) had no application to such an order. The Tribunal was not justified
in purporting to act under section 254(2) and passing the impugned order
(Emphasis Supplied). In view of this we do not think it necessary to deal with the
submissions relating to the dispute whether there was any rectifiable mistake
apparent from the record or not."
M/S Padam Prakash Khandaka Huf, Jaipur vs Assistnt Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 16 February, 2021
6. Respectfully following the special Bench decision in "Shri Padam
Parkash HUF vs. ITO", we reject the miscellaneous application of the
Revenue.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kabir Das Investment Ltd. And Another on 27 May, 1994
5. Following the Special Bench order of the ITAT Delhi Bench 'E' in the
case of "Shri Padam Parkash HUF vs. ITO", [2011] 9 taxmann.com 178
wherein following the judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of
"CIT v. Kabir Das Investment Ltd", (Supra) it was held that the Tribunal has
no power to adjudicate upon subsequent miscellaneous application filed u/s
254(2).
Section 253 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 254 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. vs The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal And ... on 8 January, 1975
Further, reliance is also placed on the Judgment of Orissa High Court in the case
of Commissioner of Income Tax & ANR vs. President, Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal & ORS. (Orissa) (1992) 196 ITR 83 [Refer Page No. 14 to 16 of the
paper-bookl and the relevant part of the judgment on Page No.16 reads as
under:-
Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Spinning & ... vs Itat & Anr. on 19 September, 2002
(i) Mentha & Allied Products Co. (P.) Ltd. v. ITAT [2000] 244 ITR 470
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Aiswarya Trading Co on 19 March, 2010
[Provided further that any application filed by the assessee in this sub-
section on or after the 1st day of October 1998, shall be accompanied by a
fee of fifty rupees.]
1.1 It is settled principle of law that no order for rectifying any mistake in the
order u/s 254(2) can be passed u/s 254(2) and only the mistake in the order
passed u/s 254(1) can be rectified u/s 254(2). The reliance is placed on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Kerela High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aishwarya
Trading Co. reported in 331 ITR 521 [Refer Page No.17 to 19 of the paper-bookl
in which their Lordships observed as under:-
1