Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Ganjikunta Kishore Babu (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Appeal Number : M.A. No. 85/Hyd/2016, ITA No. 839/Hyd/2015: 28/02/2017
Date of Judgement/Order : 2011-12
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

By Section 254(4) of the IT Act, an order which has been passed by the Tribunal reaches finality the moment the same is passed: it cannot be touched thereafter. By section 254(2) of the act, the Tribunal, however, has been authorized to rectify mistakes in its orders, which are apparent on the face of the records. The expression “mistake apparent on the record” means a mistake either clerical or grammatical or arithmetical or of like nature, which can be detected without there being any necessity to re-argue the matter or to reappraise the facts as appearing from the records.


1. The assessee has filed this M.A. seeking rectification of mistake crept into the order of the Tribunal passed in ITA No. 839/Hyd/2016 dated 24/08/2016.

2. In the M.A., the assessee stated as follows:

1. The Hon’ble ITAT vide its order cited above, at Para 12.1 sustained the addition made in the sum of Rs.15,79,809/- being transfer of machinery by the Individual to his HUF appellant, allegedly assessable under section 56 (2) of the Act.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031