Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.46 seconds)
M/S.Devaraj & Others vs The Income Tax Officer on 27 November, 2025 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax (It)4 vs M/S. Reliance Telecom Ltd. on 3 December, 2021

4. In the present case, a detailed order was passed by the ITAT when it passed an order on 6-9-2013, by which the ITAT held in favour of the Revenue. Therefore, the said order could not have been recalled by the Appellate Tribunal in exercise of powers under Section 254(2) of the Act. If the assessee was of the opinion that the order passed by the ITAT was erroneous, either on facts or in law, in that case, the only remedy available to the Assessee was to prefer the appeal before the High Court, which as such was already filed by the Assessee before the High Court, which the Assessee withdrew after the order passed by the ITAT dated 18-11-2016 recalling its earlier _________ Page 13 of 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 06:25:47 pm ) TCA Nos.319 of 2016 and 538 of 2021 order dated 6-9-2013. Therefore, as such, the order passed by the ITAT recalling its earlier order dated 6-9-
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 114 - M R Shah - Full Document

Assistant Commnr., Income Tax, Rajkot vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd on 15 September, 2008

A point which was not examined on facts or in law cannot be dealt with as a mistake apparent from the record. No error can be said to be apparent on the face of the record if it is not manifest or self evident and requires an examination or argument to establish it. Where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, is a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record. Vide Asst. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC), Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466 (SC), Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque [1955] 1 SCR 1104, CIT v. Keshri Metal (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 165 (SC), Deva Metal Power (P.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 395 - C K Thakker - Full Document

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

A point which was not examined on facts or in law cannot be dealt with as a mistake apparent from the record. No error can be said to be apparent on the face of the record if it is not manifest or self evident and requires an examination or argument to establish it. Where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, is a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record. Vide Asst. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC), Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466 (SC), Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque [1955] 1 SCR 1104, CIT v. Keshri Metal (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 165 (SC), Deva Metal Power (P.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 258 - Full Document

Hari Vishnu Kamath vs Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others on 9 December, 1954

A point which was not examined on facts or in law cannot be dealt with as a mistake apparent from the record. No error can be said to be apparent on the face of the record if it is not manifest or self evident and requires an examination or argument to establish it. Where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, is a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record. Vide Asst. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC), Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466 (SC), Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque [1955] 1 SCR 1104, CIT v. Keshri Metal (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 165 (SC), Deva Metal Power (P.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 1109 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jabalpur vs Keshri Metal Pvt. Ltd., Raipur on 18 March, 1999

A point which was not examined on facts or in law cannot be dealt with as a mistake apparent from the record. No error can be said to be apparent on the face of the record if it is not manifest or self evident and requires an examination or argument to establish it. Where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, is a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record. Vide Asst. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC), Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466 (SC), Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque [1955] 1 SCR 1104, CIT v. Keshri Metal (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 165 (SC), Deva Metal Power (P.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 35 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next