Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.67 seconds)

M/S. Maharana Mills (Private) Ltd vs The Income-Tax Officer, Porbandar on 14 April, 1959

(ii) unlike the present case, there, the error was in existence and apparent from the record of the appeal at the time of its decision. it is argued that-Maharana Mills' case (supra) was not one where the mistake was rectified with reference to something happening subsequently to the original decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 95 - J L Kapur - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Khemchand Ramdas on 7 April, 1938

8--564SCI/75 850 Tribunal had for the I.T.O's finding as to the value of the closing stock for the assessment year 1959-60 being Rs. 8,04,121/- completely substituted its own finding regarding such value being Rs. 5,89, 439/-, with effect from the date of I.T.O's order, and thus the Tribunal's order, though passed subsequently, had, with retrospective effect, become a part of the record of the, appeal relating, to the assessment year 1960-61, which could legitimately be looked into by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining and rectifying the mistake in his appellate decision. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of this Court in Maharana Mills (P) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Porbandat (supra) and that of the Privy Council in Commis- sioner of Income-tax v. Khemchand Ramdas (supra). The material part of s.35 is in these terms "35(1). The Commissioner or Appellate Assistant Commissioner may, at any time within four years from the date of any order passed by him in appeal or in the case of the Commissioner in revision under Section 33A and the Income-Tax Officer may, at any time, within four years from the date of any assessmet order of refund order passed by him on his own motion rectify any mistake apparent from the record of the appeal, revision, assessment or refund as the case may be, and shall within the like period rectify any such mistake which has been brought to his notice by an assessee. . . "
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 150 - Full Document
1   2 Next