Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 52 (2.04 seconds)The Customs Act, 1962
M/S. Maharana Mills (Private) Ltd vs The Income-Tax Officer, Porbandar on 14 April, 1959
5. It was argued by Shri R.K. Jain, learned consultant and Secretary of the CEGAT Bar Association, that the case of Tracto Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd., supra, is not based on any authority of any High Court or of the Tribunal, and therefore, besides it being of an earlier date and was rendered by a two Member Bench, is to be ignored in view of the later judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Sin' Ram Bansal v. Dr. N.S. Bhatnagar, supra, which is based on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Maharana Mills (Private) Ltd., supra, and also on the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, supra. He also took us through Sub-section (2) of Section 129B of the Act to show that it speaks of amendment of "any order" passed by the Tribunal under Sub-section (1) of the same Section. In a nutshell, his submission was that repeated/successive application for Rectification of Mistake appearing in the Order passed by the Tribunal on the earlier application for rectification under Section 129B(2) of the Act is maintainable if any new ground(s) is available. Adding that, Order passed on the application for rectification cannot be an Order of affirmation.
Section 33 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Bihar State Road Transport Corporation vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 8 April, 1986
5. It was argued by Shri R.K. Jain, learned consultant and Secretary of the CEGAT Bar Association, that the case of Tracto Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd., supra, is not based on any authority of any High Court or of the Tribunal, and therefore, besides it being of an earlier date and was rendered by a two Member Bench, is to be ignored in view of the later judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Sin' Ram Bansal v. Dr. N.S. Bhatnagar, supra, which is based on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Maharana Mills (Private) Ltd., supra, and also on the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, supra. He also took us through Sub-section (2) of Section 129B of the Act to show that it speaks of amendment of "any order" passed by the Tribunal under Sub-section (1) of the same Section. In a nutshell, his submission was that repeated/successive application for Rectification of Mistake appearing in the Order passed by the Tribunal on the earlier application for rectification under Section 129B(2) of the Act is maintainable if any new ground(s) is available. Adding that, Order passed on the application for rectification cannot be an Order of affirmation.
The Income-Tax Officer, Alwaye vs The Asok Textiles Ltd., Alwaye on 13 December, 1960
In the present case, as aforesaid, we are concerned with the interpretation of the expression "to amend any order passed by it under sub-section(1)" with a view to rectifying any mistake, and therefore, we are not required to dwell ourselves on the cases cited at the Bar which deal with the meaning and scope of expression "mistake apparent from the record" and for that purpose what constitutes "record", (see Maharana Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO; ITO v. Ashok Textiles Ltd.; Kil Kotagiri Tea & Coffee Estate Co. v. ITAT; Anchor Pressing Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT; CIT v. Shakuntala Rajeswar; CIT v. ITAT and Anr.; Neeta S. Shah v. CIT; Lakshmi Electric Corpn. v. CIT; Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT; CIT v. ITAT and Ors.; CIT v. ITAT supra) or what is the starting point of limitation for computing period of limitation of "four years" for the purpose of rectification (see Bihar State Road Transport Corpn. v. CIT & Kutti-krishnan Nair v. ITAT supra) or "amend" (see CIT v. Mita Lal Ashok Kumar; CIT v. ITAT, & CIT v. ITAT supra) or brought to its notice by either party or suo motu power of the Tribunal to correct any error or its inherent powers (see Shiv Deo Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab; Mrs. KTMS Uma Salma v. CIT; Kuttikrishnan Nair v. ITAT; Sitaramappa Ananthappa Manvi v. CIT; ITO v. Singer Singh & Sons; & ITO v. ITAT supra) or power of the Tribunal to set aside its Final Order passed on appeal ex-parte (see CIT v. ITAT supra) or opportunity to be heard to be accorded to both sides while dealing with an application for rectification (see case of Smart Pvt. Ltd. v. ITAT supra) or with the cases dealing with the theory of Merger (see case of Vedantham Raghaviah v. Third Addl.