Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.51 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. on 11 October, 2006
In the case of CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. [2007]
293 ITR 163/159 Taxman 122 (Delhi), their Lordships while considering
the powers of the Tribunal under s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961 observed as
under: "Under s. 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal has the power to
rectify mistakes in its order. However, it is plain that the power to rectify a
mistake is not equivalent to a power to review or recall the order sought to
be rectified. Rectification is a species of the larger concept of review.
Although it is possible that the pre-requisite for exercise of either power
may be similar (a mistake apparent from the record), by its very nature the
power to rectify a mistake cannot result in the recall and review of the
order sought to be rectified."
Section 35B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Service Tax Mumbai ... vs M/S Reliance Telecom Limited on 22 November, 2019
In this
respect, the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4), Mumbai v. Reliance Telecom Limited dated
25
M.A. No. 02/RPR/2018, 06 to 12/RPR/2024
Arising out of ITA No. 126 to 132/BLPR/2011
Shri Javed Ali Pradhan
December 3, 2021, in Civil Appeal No. 7110 of 2021 reported in [2021] 133
taxmann.com 41 (SC), shall be relevant and binding on us to follow, wherein
Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Pearl Woollen Mills on 2 July, 1996
12. We may herein also note that in the case of CIT v. Pearl Woolen
Mills [2011] 330 ITR 164/[2010] 191 Taxman 286 (Punj. &Har.), Hon'ble
Punjab & Haryana High Court have accorded similar findings which reads as
under:
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Culcutta vs Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P) Ltd on 14 February, 1989
13. Further, the order of the Tribunal is to be read in a whole and not in a
piecemeal manner. For this purpose, we place reliance on the judgment of
Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. (P.)
Ltd. [1989] 176 ITR 535/43 Taxman 45 wherein held that the decision of
the Tribunal has not to be scrutinised sentence by sentence merely to find
out whether all facts USP have been set out in detail by the Tribunal or
whether some incidental fact which appears on the record has not been
noticed by the Tribunal in its judgment. If the court, on a fair reading of the
judgment of the Tribunal, finds that it has taken into account all relevant
material and has not taken into account any irrelevant material in basing
its conclusions, the decision of the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered
with, unless, of course, the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are
perverse. It is not necessary for the Tribunal to state in its judgment
specifically or in express words that it has taken into account the
cumulative effect of the circumstances or has considered the totality of the
facts, as if that were a magic formula; if the judgment of the Tribunal
shows that it has, in fact, done so, there is no reason to interfere with the
decision of the Tribunal.
T. S. Balaram, Income Tax ... vs M/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971
I. T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers*[1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC)
DB
"A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and
31
M.A. No. 02/RPR/2018, 06 to 12/RPR/2024
Arising out of ITA No. 126 to 132/BLPR/2011
Shri Javed Ali Pradhan
not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning
on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. As seen earlier, the
High Court of Bombay opined that the original assessments were in accordance
with law though in our opinion the High Court was not justified in going into
that question.
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde And ... vs Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale on 25 September, 1959
In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v.
MallikarjunBhavanappa Tirumale [I960] 1 SCR 890, this court while spelling
out the scope of the power of a High Court under article 226 of the Constitution
ruled that an error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of
reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be
said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
Sidhramappa Andannappa Manvi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay on 28 August, 1951
A decision on a
debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record--see
Sidhramappa Andannappa Manvi v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1952] 21
ITR 333 (Bom.). The power of the officers mentioned in section 154 of the
Income-tax Act, 1961, to correct "any mistake apparent from the record" is
undoubtedly not more than that of the High Court to entertain a writ petition on
the basis of an "error apparent on the face of the record." In this case it is not
necessary for us to spell out the distinction between the expressions "error
apparent on the face of the record" and "mistake apparent from the record".
But suffice it to say that the Income-tax Officer was wholly wrong in holding
that there was a mistake apparent from the record of the assessments of the first
respondent.''