section 254 - Page 3

Assessee cannot seek restoration of Appeal withdrawn on advise of her Advocate without submitting Advocates letter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

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (5,716)
Company Law (7,667)
Custom Duty (8,713)
DGFT (4,623)
Excise Duty (4,528)
Fema / RBI (4,815)
Finance (5,185)
Income Tax (38,424)
SEBI (4,132)
Service Tax (3,779)

Search Posts by Date

September 2021