IT authorities are empowered to amend any order passed by them under the Act with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record. A mistake is an omission made not by design but by mischance. A mistake apparent is a mistake that is manifest. In other words, the mistake must be so plain or obvious that it could be realised without a debate or dissertation
Under the Ethyl Alcohol (Price Control) Amendment Order, 1971, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Chemicals and Mines and Metals, dated January 30, 1971, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the Central Government prescribed certain maximum ex-distillery prices of ethyl alcohol as set out therein.
The question whether the charge was voluntary or involuntary will have to be decided with reference to the facts relating to the creation of such charge. If the charge is created voluntarily, it remains so, whether it is created before the amendment or after the amendment.
There is no finding of fact to the effect that actually the loan had been granted to the managing director or any other person on interest, or that interest had actually been collected and the collection of the interest was not reflected in the accounts.
Enactment of new provisions in the Income-tax Act, 1961, instead of reducing more than not, increases litigation This is either because of the ambiguity or lack of clarity in the provision enacted or the manner in which the newly enacted provision is applied The present case falls in the second category as we shall presently see
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 1,08,644 made in the assessment for the assessment year 1980-81, being the amount transferred to the ‘molasses storage fund’ from the sale proceeds of the molasses ?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that two courses were open to the assessee, one being to claim depreciation and the other being forgo the depreciation and any course which is beneficial to the assessee could be adopted and the incidence of tax can be legitimately reduced
It is evident from a reading of these two clauses that clause (iii) which permitted any amount paid by way of interest on a mortgage or other capital charge was deleted and clause (iv) was amended in such a manner as to make only that annual charge which is not voluntary or which does not amount to a capital charge alone deductible.
The petitioner is in the service of the Bank of Baroda. He purchased a flat in Suvarnadeep Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short “Surnadeep”), Santacruz, Bombay, on March 21, 1973, for a sum of Rs. 49,140 for the purpose of his residence. He was residing in that flat On October 24, 1979, he sold the flat for Rs. 1,25,000
The decision in this case arose out of an order passed by the Tribunal which had condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the respondent. The Tribunal had condoned the delay on the ground that there was a decision of the Supreme Court on the controversy raised and because of the said decision the Assessee had found that it had good reason to prefer an appeal
