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...
Explore the ITAT Mumbai judgment in Anandkumar Jain vs ITO, highlighting rectification under Section 154 for deduction under Section 80HHC based on subsequent Supreme Court decisions.
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 by the Bench were perverse. Under Section 254 Only glaring and mistake apparent on the face of the record alone could be rectified which was not apparent in the of assessee.
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 […]
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 […]
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.
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
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.
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
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 Act. If we are not given that power, then it is not expected from us to exercise such power which is not provided in the Act.
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 expression passed cannot be stretched to mean that the period of limitation should be reckoned from the date of receipt of the order.
