Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kochi on 2 May, 2002
6. When this is the position and the assessments were done in this
manner it could not be stated that there was an error which could be
corrected by invoking the provisions of Section 154 of the Act. The
assessee had claimed the set off ` 1,39,36,000 in terms of Explanation
III (of (2) proviso to Section 164 JA (2) of the Act) as against the brought
forward loss as per the books at ` 15,01,82,00/-. Thus, the matter
related to the interpretation of the effect which is to be given to the
aforesaid provision and, therefore, it was not a mistake which was to be
corrected for which jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act could be
exercised, as held by the Apex Court in Apollo Tyres Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, 255 ITR 273 and T.S. Balaram
Income Tax Officer, Company Circle IV, Bombay Vs. M/s
Volkart Brothers, 82 ITR 50.