In the instant case, learned counsel for the Revenue is not in a position to demonstrate or satisfy us that due to the change of accounting method adopted by the respondent/assessee , which is permissible in law as per the ratio laid down in (i) CIT v. Matchwell Electricals (I.) Ltd. (2003)263 ITR 227 (Bom) and (ii) Hela Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 129 (Cal), the Revenue suffered any loss or such a change of methodology attracts tax evasion. Concededly, there is no finding to that effect in the assessment order or in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
. From the various judgments of the Supreme Court above referred to and other High Courts, it is clear that the Tribunal’s power under Section 254(2) is not to review its earlier order but only to amend it with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. What can be termed as “mistake apparent?”. “Mistake” in general means to take or understand wrongly or inaccurately; to make an error in interpreting; it is an error; a fault, a misunderstanding, a misconception. Mistake in taxation laws has a special significance. It is mostly subjective and the dividing line is thin and indiscernible. “Apparent” means visible, capable of being seen, easily seen, obvious plain, open to view, evident, appears, appearing as real and true, conspicuous, manifest, seeming. The plain meaning of the word “apparent” is that it must be something which appears to be ex-facie and incapable of argumen
This article summarizes recent ruling of the Madras High Court (HC) in the case of CIT v M/s Hi Tech Arai Limited (Taxpayer) [Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 670 and 671 of 2009] on the issue of allowability of additional depreciation on newly set-up windmills, under the Indian Tax Law (ITL),
In the event of a reasonable doubt about the applicability of Chapter XVII-B, Section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked, would be stretching our jurisdiction beyond the permissible limit which cannot be done. In as much as we have reached a conclusion that the object sought to be achieved while enacting Section 40(a)(ia) was for augmenting the provision of TDS, with which object we do not find any impermissibility or lack of constitutionality and hence there is no scope for applying the doctrine of Reading Down to the said provision.
It is quite common for the Revenue to treat such expenditure as capital in nature and administer depreciation allowance, only. An assessee would always put forth his argument that such replacement cost is only to maintain the existing level of efficiency of his manufacturing facility and would not result in any increase in its production capacity, thereby claiming it to be revenue in nature. In this context, it is quite pertinent to examine the current judicial thinking on this issue.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim deduction for bad debts of Rs.38,20,417/- in respect of the money lending business which was closed down during the accounting year relevant to the assessment year in 1998-99, without following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gemini Cashew Sales Corporation and contrary to the provisions of Section 36(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act. Merely because the money lending business was subsequently discontinued, that is in the subsequent accounting year relating to the relevant assessment year, it cannot be held that the assessee was disentitled to claim such a deduction though such claim as bad debt was, as a matter of fact, not in dispute.
Before answering the first question viz., as to whether the interest income of the assessee received from its corporate members on the investments of surplus funds as Fixed Deposits or Debentures etc., is exempted from tax on the concept of Mutuality, it will be worthwhile to refer to the principles laid down on the Doctrine of Mutuality in the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as some of the High Courts.
The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80-IB (10) which was rejected by the AO but allowed by the CIT (A). On appeal by the department, the Tribunal ruled against the assessee and held that it was not eligible for deduction. The assessee filed a MA u/s 254 (2) pointing out that it had cited a judgement of the Kolkota Bench of the Tribunal (which had been considered by the CIT (A)) and a judgement of the Kolkota High Court which had not been considered by the Tribunal when deciding the appeal and the same was a ‘mistake apparent from the record’.
It cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that once a petition is admitted, it could never be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy; therefore, the High Court can entertain the plea whether the writ is maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, even after the writ petition was admitted and rule nisi was ordered
The First Respondent had filed a claim petition against the Petitioners before the arbitrator seeking a sum of over Rs.57 lakhs stated to be due under a hire-purchase agreement. The Petitioners raised a specific plea before the arbitrator that the claim petition was not maintainable as the first Petitioner had been declared a sick industrial company by the BIFR and that section 22 of SICA placed an embargo on the continuation of the arbitral proceedings against them.
