Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 47 (0.34 seconds)Checkmate Services P Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-I on 12 October, 2022
Considering the distinguishable facts that were involved in the case
of Mepco Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), we are of the considered
view that as in the case of the present assessee before us the
department is only seeking rectification of the order passed by the
Tribunal, i.e. for the limited purpose of bringing the same in
conformity with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-
I (supra), therefore, the reliance placed by the Ld. ARs on the
aforesaid judgment would by no means assist their case.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 143 in THE FINANCE ACT, 2021 [Entire Act]
Acit, Cir.-7(2)(2), Mumbai vs National Stock Exchange Of India Ltd., ... on 3 October, 2018
"... I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the non-
consideration of a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or
that of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court delivered prior to
or even subsequent to the order constitutes a mistake
apparent from record as has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.
(supra).
Section 36 in THE FINANCE ACT, 2021 [Entire Act]
Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S Mepco Industries Ltd.Madurai vs Commr.Of Income Tax & Anr on 19 November, 2009
10. Although at the first blush the aforesaid claim of the Ld. AR's
appeared to be very attractive, but as the facts involved in the case
of Mepco India Ltd. (supra) are found to be distinguishable as
against those involved in the case before us, therefore, the reliance
placed on the same would not assist their case. In the case before
the Hon'ble Apex Court, the assessee appellant which was engaged
in the business of manufacturing of potassium chlorates had received
power subsidy for two years. The power subsidy received was initially
offered by the assessee as a "revenue receipt" in its return of
income.