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 dow...
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 pr...
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 Tribu...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that although foreign commission expenditure was non-genuine and liable for disallowance, amounts already written...
Income Tax : The Bombay High Court held that reassessment proceedings became time-barred because no reassessment order was passed within the li...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi confirmed deletion of addition on alleged diversion of interest-bearing funds, holding that hypothetical or notional in...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that challenges to appreciation of evidence amount to review, not rectification. It ruled that Section 254(2) pe...
Income Tax : The Tribunal examined disallowance made for delayed employee contributions under Section 143(1). It held that debatable issues can...
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 […]
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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 […]
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 […]
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 the basis of material already on record before the Commissioner.
