Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.25 seconds)
Ito Wd 6(1) (4), Mumbai vs Bloom Systems Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai on 24 July, 2024 cites

Suhrid Geigy Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Surtax on 10 September, 1998

Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court had referred to a decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Suhrid Geigy Ltd vs. Commissioner of Surtax reported in (1999) 237 ITR 834 that if the point is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered prior or even subsequent to the order of rectification, it could be a mistake apparent from the record u/s. 254(2) and could be corrected by the Tribunal. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred this judgment and only held that if a judgment is being rendered by any High Court or Supreme Court that means the law was always being the same and if a subsequent decision alters the earlier one, the later decision does not make a new law. This observation of the Court does not lead to any inference to draw that any rectification order u/s. 254(2) can be based on subsequent judgment which comes later on. On the contrary, all the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court which we have quoted above extenso have clearly held that there would be no review or recall 11 M.A. No. 56 & 67/MUM/2023 Bloom Systems Pvt Ltd, Mumbai of the order based on the subsequent judgment. Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. on the fact of the case has concluded as under:-
Gujarat High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 43 - A R Dave - Full Document

State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Kamal Sengupta & Anr on 16 June, 2008

52. The question arising for decision in State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta32 was whether a tribunal established under section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 can review its decision on the basis of a subsequent order/decision/judgment rendered by a coordinate or larger Bench or any superior court or on the basis of subsequent event/development. It was contended on behalf of the State that any subsequent decision on an identical or similar point by a coordinate or larger Bench or even change of law cannot be made the basis for recording a finding that the order sought to be reviewed suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. After considering a host of decisions with a finetooth comb, the Court went on to cull out the principles of review in paragraph 35 of the decision which is extracted hereunder:
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 1331 - G S Singhvi - Full Document
1   2 3 Next