section 254

Prosecution – made more simpler for revenue

Income Tax - A perusal of this order reveals that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that it is empowered by Section 254 of the Act to stay prosecution. The said finding is the bone of contention between the parties. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (Punjab & Haryana HIgh Court at Chandigarh),...

Read More

Provide Shorter Time For Rectification Of Mistake by Tribunal

Income Tax - The existing provisions of Section 254(2) provide for a time-limit of four years from the date of the order of the Appellate Tribunal for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. In practice this long time-limit has given rise to difficulties arising on account of non-availability of the Members who passed the order due to tran...

Read More

ITAT Allowed Exemption not claimed in ITR filed due to Inadvertence

Max Life Insurance Company Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) - whether the additional ground submitted by the assessee should be allowed by the tribunal by considering that the assessee has not claimed exemption in the return filed due to inadvertence?...

Read More

Section 254(2)- Tribunal cannot review its own order: ITAT

ITO Vs Shri Khaliq Ahmed (ITAT Lucknow) - If the Revenue has any grievance against the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue can go before the High Court by filing appeal u/s 260A. The Tribunal cannot recall its own order in the garb of power vested u/s 254(2) of the Act....

Read More

Amendment in Section 254(2A) | Directory or Mandatory? | Case referred to President of ITAT

Tata Education and Development Trust Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) - The issue under consideration is regarding application of Stay of Demand in front of Tribunal, whether the amendment done by Finance Act, 2020 in Section 254 will be applicable in present case?...

Read More

Order passed by AO against directions issued by Tribunal is not sustainable in law

Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Gujarat High Court) - Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Gujarat High Court) In the given case, Assessee has filed appeal before ITAT against the order passed by the A.O. u/s 44AD. With respect to that appeal ITAT passed the order and state that “the Assessee is directed to attend the assessment procee...

Read More

HC clarifies on Section 254(2) limitation period for filing rectification application

PCIT Vs ITAT (Bombay High Court) - PCIT Vs ITAT (Bombay High Court) From a careful reading of the provision, it is seen that Tribunal is vested with the power to rectify any mistake apparent from the record to amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) of Section 254 at any time within six months from the end of the […...

Read More
Sorry No Post Found

Recent Posts in "section 254"

ITAT Allowed Exemption not claimed in ITR filed due to Inadvertence

Max Life Insurance Company Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)

whether the additional ground submitted by the assessee should be allowed by the tribunal by considering that the assessee has not claimed exemption in the return filed due to inadvertence?...

Read More

Section 254(2)- Tribunal cannot review its own order: ITAT

ITO Vs Shri Khaliq Ahmed (ITAT Lucknow)

If the Revenue has any grievance against the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue can go before the High Court by filing appeal u/s 260A. The Tribunal cannot recall its own order in the garb of power vested u/s 254(2) of the Act....

Read More

Amendment in Section 254(2A) | Directory or Mandatory? | Case referred to President of ITAT

Tata Education and Development Trust Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

The issue under consideration is regarding application of Stay of Demand in front of Tribunal, whether the amendment done by Finance Act, 2020 in Section 254 will be applicable in present case?...

Read More

Order passed by AO against directions issued by Tribunal is not sustainable in law

Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Gujarat High Court)

Engineering Professional Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Gujarat High Court) In the given case, Assessee has filed appeal before ITAT against the order passed by the A.O. u/s 44AD. With respect to that appeal ITAT passed the order and state that “the Assessee is directed to attend the assessment proceedings and justify its claim of […...

Read More

HC clarifies on Section 254(2) limitation period for filing rectification application

PCIT Vs ITAT (Bombay High Court)

PCIT Vs ITAT (Bombay High Court) From a careful reading of the provision, it is seen that Tribunal is vested with the power to rectify any mistake apparent from the record to amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) of Section 254 at any time within six months from the end of the […]...

Read More

ITAT Can Direct CIT To Register A Trust Under Section 12AA

CIT Vs M/s. Reham Foundation Kandhari Lane Lal Bagh Lucknow (High Court Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)

The income tax Appellate Tribunal while hearing an Appeal under Section 254(1) in a matter where registration under Section 12(AA) has been denied by Commissioner income tax can itself pass an order directing commissioner to grant registration in case the income tax Appellate Tribunal disagrees with the satisfaction of the Commissioner on...

Read More

Order contrary to subsequent SC judgement can be said to suffer from mistake apparent from record

Anandkumar Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

Anandkumar Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) In the present case, there is no dispute with respect to the fact that the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports (supra) has decided the issue of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act on sale proceeds of DEPB license in favour […]...

Read More

Section 254(2) Non-consideration of decisions is mistake apparent from law

M/s. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Ltd Vs Addl. CIT (TDS) (ITAT Hyderabad)

M/s. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Ltd Vs Addl. CIT (TDS) (ITAT Hyderabad) We have perused the order of the Tribunal and find that in Para 8 of the order, the Tribunal has considered the applicability of sub-section (3) of section 201(1) also to 201(1A) and has clearly held that sub section (3) refers only to an […]...

Read More

Only Mistake apparent on the face of record can be rectified u/s 254

Kamaljit Singh Prop. Dhanoa Brothers Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar)

Where on a fair reading of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench, it appeared that it had taken into account all relevant material and had not taken into account any irrelevant material in basing its conclusions, then the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, was not liable to be interfered with, unless, of course, the conclusions arrived at...

Read More

MA is maintainable only if appeal is pending and not admitted

Shri Ratanlal C. Bafna Vs JCIT (ITAT Pune)

Shri Ratanlal C. Bafna Vs JCIT (ITAT Pune) When appeal has been filed before the Hon’ble High Court, the appeal is admitted and substantial question of law has been framed in the said appeal, then the Tribunal cannot recall the order. In the present case since the appeal against the order of the Tribunal has […]...

Read More

S. 254 Miscellaneous petitions filed after 6 months from ITAT order date is barred by limitation

Shamsunissa Begum Vs. Dy. CIT (ITAT Bangalore)

Question of rectification of mistake cannot be entertained until and unless the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee is found to be maintainable. The miscellaneous petitions filed by the assessee are beyond the period of 6 months from 1-6-2016 and therefore the same are barred by limitation. ...

Read More

Amendment U/s. 254(2): Six month time limit for rectification is Prospective

Lucent Technologies GRL LLC Vs. ADIT (ITAT Mumbai)

The Amendment Under Section 254(2) In Respect Of Time Limit Of Six Months For Rectification Is Prospective And Applicable To The Orders Passed After 01.06.2016...

Read More

Sec. 254(2) amendment applies to orders passed after 01/06/2016

Lucent Technologies GRL LLC Vs. ADIT (ITAT Mumbai)

These Miscellaneous Applications are filed by the assessee seeking rectification of mistake apparent on the record in the order dated 06/09/2013 passed by the Tribunal while disposing of bunch of appeals filed by the department....

Read More

There can be no tax liability without the authority of law : ITAT Mumbai

Nivea India Private Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

This appeal by assessee u/s 253 of Income Tax Act (the Act) is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-15, Mumbai dated 16.10.2012 for Assessment Year 2007-08. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal...

Read More

Tribunal cannot condone delay in filing Miscellaneous Application

DCIT Vs Hita Land Private Limited (ITAT Mumbai)

The Tribunal has been given power to admit an appeal after the expiry of the relevant period, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period as per Section 253(5). However, this Tribunal is not enshrined with such powers in respect of a miscellaneous petition filed u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax ...

Read More

ITAT clarifies period of limitation for filing rectification application U/s. 254(2)

Srinivas Sashidhar Chaganty Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)

Section 254(2) of the Act refers to the period of limitation reckoning from the end of the month in which the order is passed and not from the date of ‘date of receipt of the served/ received are not interchangeable and the Legislature in its wisdom expressly used the phraselogy depending on the intention. In the instant case, the expre...

Read More

Section 254(2) cannot be applied to seek review of ITAT order

Ganjikunta Kishore Babu (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)

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. ...

Read More

Tribunal recalled order having mistake apparent from record

Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)

These bunch of miscellaneous applications have been filed by different assessees viz., Reliance Communications Ltd., (formerly known as Reliance Infocom Ltd.), Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd., Reliance BPO Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Reliance Infostream Pvt. Ltd.) and Reliance Telecom Ltd....

Read More

Assessee cannot seek restoration of Appeal withdrawn on advise of her Advocate without submitting Advocates letter

Jayant D. Sanghavi Vs ITAT (Bombay High Court)

In the present facts there is nothing on record in the form of the Advocates letter, etc. to indicate that the petitioner acted upon his legal advise and the same was wrong. Therefore, whether the petitioner acted on advise of his Advocate or not is itself a subject matter of debate. Thus taking the application outside the scope of Sectio...

Read More

Provide Shorter Time For Rectification Of Mistake by Tribunal

The existing provisions of Section 254(2) provide for a time-limit of four years from the date of the order of the Appellate Tribunal for rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. In practice this long time-limit has given rise to difficulties arising on account of non-availability of the Members who passed the order due to tran...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

No review power vest with ITAT, only authorized to amend his order for mistake apparent from records u/s 254 (2)

Shakti Cable Industries Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

ITAT Mumbai held In the case of Shakti Cable Industries vs. ITO that it is clear that the words mistake apparent from record, as appearing in the section 254(2) has a special meaning and definite connotation....

Read More

Prosecution – made more simpler for revenue

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Punjab & Haryana HIgh Court at Chandigarh)

A perusal of this order reveals that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that it is empowered by Section 254 of the Act to stay prosecution. The said finding is the bone of contention between the parties. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench (Punjab & Haryana HIgh Court at Chandigarh),...

Read More

Review u/s 254(2) only if there is a mistake apparent from the record

M/s. Janus Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

If the AO had reopened the assessment and made a disallowance and these facts could affect the outcome of the issue, the AO should appear before the FAA to file an explanation about the chronology of events. But, in any manner the subsequent decision taken by the AO cannot be held to be a mistake apparent from the record....

Read More

Does Tribunal have power to grant stay beyond period of 365 days prescribed in Act?

Pepsi Foods Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)

Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Pepsi Foods Private Limited vs. ACIT [W.P.(C) 1334/2015] pronounced on 19-05-2015 wherein the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as ‘the Act’). ...

Read More

A.O Zeal to protect interest of revenue has to be tempered with rules of fair play

Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr. Vs Sony Mobile Communications (India) Pvt.Ltd. (Delhi High Court)

The assessing officer is a prospector of the revenue and he is no doubt expected to protect the interests of the revenue zealously, but such zeal has to be tempered with the rules of fair play and an anxiety to ensure that a opportunity is not lost to the assessee to make alternative arrangements for clearing the tax dues, once the stay a...

Read More

ITAT has no power to grant stay beyond 365 Days

Commissioner of Income Tax- II Vs M/s Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited (Delhi High Court)

Recently Delhi High Court has held in the case of CIT Vs. s Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited (WP (Civil) no. 5003/2013 dated : 21.02.2014 that ITAT has no power to grant stay beyond 365 days in light of third proviso to Sec. 254(2A) inserted by Finance Act, 2008. High Court further held that Courts must respect legislative mandate....

Read More

Assessee not allowed to raise same issue again in the guise of rectification before ITAT

Smt. M. Pochamma Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (ITAT Hyderabad)

On going through the order passed by the Tribunal, it is found that the Tribunal passed the order, after marshalling at the facts considering the submissions made before it and applying its mind to the decisions cited before it. There is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal of the nature as envisaged under section 254(2). Permitting t...

Read More

Power to rectify a mistake u/s. 254(2) cannot be used for recalling entire order

Seven Hills Business Solutions Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (ITAT Hyderabad)

The words used in s. 254(2) are 'shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice'. Clearly, if there is a mistake, then an amendment is required to be carried out in the original order to correct that particular mistake. The provision does not indicate that the Tribunal can recall the entire order and pass a fresh decis...

Read More

Tribunal has power to grant unlimited stay of demand

Vodafone West Limited (formerly known as Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited) Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Ahmedabad)

Tribunal has power to extend the period of stay beyond 365 days u/s.254(2A), third proviso, even if the delay in disposing off the appeal is not attributable to the assessee, there may be several other reasons for not disposing of the appeal by the ITAT....

Read More

Decision on debatable point of law or fact cannot be corrected by rectification u/s. 254(2)

Prem Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO, Ward 14(3) (ITAT Delhi)

A bare look at section 254(2) of the Act, which deals with rectification, makes it amply clear that a 'mistake apparent from the record' is rectifiable. In order to attract the application of section 254(2), a mistake must exist and the same must be apparent from the record. The power to rectify the mistake, however, does not cover cases ...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,039)
Company Law (6,695)
Custom Duty (8,067)
DGFT (4,384)
Excise Duty (4,406)
Fema / RBI (4,431)
Finance (4,689)
Income Tax (35,011)
SEBI (3,750)
Service Tax (3,626)

Search Posts by Date

November 2020
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30