section 254

Third Proviso to Section 254(2A) of Income Tax Act is Arbitrary & Unconstitutional

Income Tax - The three-judge bench of Supreme Court of India in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Pepsi Foods Ltd struck down the third proviso of Section 254(2A) of Income Tax Act (Act) as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on account of being arbitrary and discriminatory in nature....

Read More

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

Aggrieved person who initiates lis has a right to withdraw the same before it is finally decided

Rajendra Singh Vs Union of India (Madhya Pradesh High Court) - It is trite law that whenever a litigant invokes a particular remedy available under a Statute, then the authority before whom the lis is preferred and pending, is ordinarily duty bound to decide the same on merits....

Read More

Ex-Parte Order- Limitation period to be counted from the date of communication or knowledge, actual or constructive

Techknoweledgy Interactive Partners P. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) - Techknoweledgy Interactive Partners P. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) To make the scheme of section 254(2) workable and to ensure that the limitation period for filing of the appeal is to be computed in a manner in harmony with the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court above, the limitation period is...

Read More

Revisiting earlier order on merits is beyond the scope & ambit of powers available u/s 254(2)

CIT Vs Reliance Telecom Limited (Supreme Court of India) - While considering the application u/s 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into detail on merits. The powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record....

Read More

Rectification was justified in case Tribunal’s ignorance of material on record was a mistake apparent on record

CIT Vs Shree Ganesh Ventures (Madras High Court) - Concerning the scope of section 254, ignoring the material already on record on the part of  Tribunal was a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Thus,  Tribunal had rightly recalled its order and rectified the mistake and it had rightly set aside the additions under Section 68. ...

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
Sorry No Post Found

Recent Posts in "section 254"

Aggrieved person who initiates lis has a right to withdraw the same before it is finally decided

Rajendra Singh Vs Union of India (Madhya Pradesh High Court)

It is trite law that whenever a litigant invokes a particular remedy available under a Statute, then the authority before whom the lis is preferred and pending, is ordinarily duty bound to decide the same on merits....

Read More

Ex-Parte Order- Limitation period to be counted from the date of communication or knowledge, actual or constructive

Techknoweledgy Interactive Partners P. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

Techknoweledgy Interactive Partners P. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai) To make the scheme of section 254(2) workable and to ensure that the limitation period for filing of the appeal is to be computed in a manner in harmony with the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court above, the limitation period is to be […]...

Read More

Revisiting earlier order on merits is beyond the scope & ambit of powers available u/s 254(2)

CIT Vs Reliance Telecom Limited (Supreme Court of India)

While considering the application u/s 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into detail on merits. The powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record....

Read More

Third Proviso to Section 254(2A) of Income Tax Act is Arbitrary & Unconstitutional

The three-judge bench of Supreme Court of India in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S Pepsi Foods Ltd struck down the third proviso of Section 254(2A) of Income Tax Act (Act) as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on account of being arbitrary and discriminatory in nature....

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Rectification was justified in case Tribunal’s ignorance of material on record was a mistake apparent on record

CIT Vs Shree Ganesh Ventures (Madras High Court)

Concerning the scope of section 254, ignoring the material already on record on the part of  Tribunal was a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Thus,  Tribunal had rightly recalled its order and rectified the mistake and it had rightly set aside the additions under Section 68. ...

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

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

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

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (6,144)
Company Law (8,556)
Corporate Law (10,694)
Custom Duty (9,446)
DGFT (4,854)
Excise Duty (4,842)
Fema / RBI (5,311)
Finance (5,698)
Income Tax (42,514)
SEBI (4,590)
Service Tax (4,041)