CIT V Keshri Metal Pvt Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 165 SC- Under the provisions of Section 154 there has to be a mistake apparent from the record. In other words, a look at the record must show there has been an error, and that error may be rectified. Learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to satisfy us that it shows any apparent error upon the record.
The current Section 44AB of the IT Act has been challenged by the Appellant on behalf of the Income Tax Practitioners. The Appellant contends that the Income Tax Practitioners should be entitled to be authorized representatives and that they are excluded for auditing accounts which violates their Fundamental Rights, specifically Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
The case of the petitioner interalia was that there was a change in law as brought about by the decision of the Supreme Court. The Delhi High Court while holding that in considering a delay condonation application facts and circumstances of the each case are required to be considered, held that the facts of the case warranted condonation of delay of 25 days.
It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of Section 23 of the Income-tax act, 1961, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that only the actual rental receipts should be treated as annual letting value though the municipal authorities have fixed the annual value at a higher figure than the actual rent ? and
Civil Appeals Nos 6082, 6083, 6084, 6085 and 6086 of 1990 and 5516 of 1997 (Appeals from the judgment and order dated March 29, 1983 of the Madras High Court in Tax Cases Nos 1065-69 of 1977 and 1070-74 of 1977),
The scheme of the IT Act, 1961, shows that the firm and its partners are treated as two separate legal entities so far as the provisions of tax law are concerned. While framing an order of assessment under the provisions of the IT Act, 1961, the firm and its partners are to be treated as two separate legal entities and payment of interest to a firm cannot be treated in the tax law as payment of interest to its partners.
SEN, J. The point that falls for determination in this case is whether a sum of Rs. 79 lakhs representing Debenture Redemption Reserve was includible in computing the capital of the assessee Company for the purpose of Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The High Court took the view that the amount set apart to redeem the debentures has to be treated as ‘provision’ and not as ‘reserve’.
Since the entire liability to pay the discount had been incurred in the accounting year in question, the assessee was entitled to deduct the entire amount of Rs 3,00,000 in that accounting year This conclusion does not appear to be justified looking to the nature of the liability It is true that the liability has been incurred in the accounting year
Dismissing the appeal filled by the Revenue and the cross appeal of the assessee, this Court HELD : 1.1. An educational society or Trust or other similar body running an educational institution solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profits could be regarded as `other educational institution’ coming within Section 10(22) of the Act. [954-F]
