Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (0.57 seconds)

Honda Siel Power Products Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi on 26 November, 2007

In case of DSM software(p) Ltd (supra) , the Hon'ble ITAT noted that there was substantial addition to the nature and type of services rendered to clients , to the volume of the business and also that there was increase in number of customers , while holding that the new business was not split 35 ITA No. 345,(Asr)/2009 ITA Nos. 55, 410,238 & 284(Asr)/2011 from the existing business. In the present case , the nature and type of products supplied in the New business is the same as in the exiting business, there is no change in the customers which remains the same as in the earlier business and there is no increase in volume of business on account of setting up of new unit other than the normal growth. This decision also in my opinion does not help the same of the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 258 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-9 vs M/S. Earnest Exports Ltd on 25 February, 2010

25. 'Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Earnest Exports Ltd.' (supra) also does not further the cause of the department. In that case, in its original order, the Tribunal specifically dealt with two Tribunal decisions cited by 12 ITA No. 345,(Asr)/2009 ITA Nos. 55, 410,238 & 284(Asr)/2011 the assessee and distinguished the same. The issue concerning deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act, was decided on merits by dealing with the said two decisions. The appeal of the assessee was not dismissed only on technical grounds. However, while dealing with the application u/s 254(2) of the Act the Tribunal virtually reconsidered the entire matter and came to the conclusion that deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act was allowable in view of these decisions. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that this amounted to re-appreciation of the correctness of the earlier decision on merits, which was not permissible. It was held that power u/s 254(2) of the Act is confined to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record and that section 254(2) is not a carte blanche for the Tribunal to change its own view by substituting a view which it believes should have been taken in the first instance. Now, again, these are not facts in pari-materia with those of the present case. In the present case, the earlier order was recalled since mistakes apparent from the record, calling for rectification, were found to exist in the earlier order of the Tribunal and it was as such that the entire earlier order was ordered to be recalled. It is not a case of substitution of an earlier view with a fresh one thought ought to have been taken earlier.
1   2 3 4 Next