Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2007 2007 (1) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 461 to 480 of 627 Records

• 2007 (1) TMI 169
  

  Appellants had imported CF Lamps from China without payment of anti-dumping duty - assessment-related provisions of the Customs Act were not applicable to anti-dumping duty. Hence the proposal raised by the Asst. Commissioner for finalization of provisional assessment is illegal – duty not demandable without issue of SCN – Comm. (A) is directed to pass speaking orders on merits in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice, without insisting on any pre-deposit

  ---

• 2007 (1) TMI 168
  

  Application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty – amount deposited before SCN - Revenue submits that in this case evasion was detected by the department and after having been caught on the wrong foot, appellant cannot escape for payment of penalty - applicant fails to make out a prima facie case for waiver of entire amount of penalty – stay not granted completely

  ---

• 2007 (1) TMI 167
  

  Assessee received enhanced compensation and interest on acquisition of agricultural land by Punjab State Electricity Board – matter regarding compensation had not attained finality but was still fluid - Revenue was not entitled to tax the amount of interest received by the assessee on account of acquisition of land till such time the proceedings with regards to award of compensation attain finality

  ---

• 2007 (1) TMI 166
  

  Delay of one day in filing the estimate of advance tax - reasons for delay was totally beyond the control of the assessee as his main source of income was share from B and filing of estimate of advance tax was dependent upon the intimation by the said firm - Once a reasonable explanation is available, there was no justification for levy of penalty for mere technical default when the delay was merely of a day

  ---

• 2007 (1) TMI 165
  

  Deposits from partners - violation of Sections 269SS and 269T - penalty u/s 271D & 271E respectively for receiving the deposit in cash and payment in cash – assessee plea is that firm is accepting cash from partners in belief that firm is not different from them - assessee has acted bona fide and his plea that inter se transactions between the partners and the firm are not governed by the provisions of Section 269 SS and 269T was reasonable explanation – penalty not justified

  ---

• 2007 (1) TMI 164
  

  AO contend that when a super structure is raised on plot, it becomes a different asset & the life of this asset can’t be linked with the acquisition of plot - Tribunal has taken a balanced view by bifurcating the profit or gain arising out of the sale of incomplete house in June, 1982, into long-term capital gain by keeping in view the date of acquisition of the plot and short-term capital gain by keeping in view the construction of a super-structure made on the plot – revenue appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (1) TMI 163
  

  Assessee claimed an expenditure as lease rental payable to various finance companies – assessing authority noted that assessee had inflated the claim on the value of cost of acquisition on steel rolls, so claim was restricted – Commissioner partly allowed the claim of assessee – tribunal was justified in noting that cost of steel rolls had not been referred for any valuation – tribunal was right in allowing claim by relying on confidential note by Deputy Commissioner for subsequent A.Y

  ---

• 2007 (1) TMI 162
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Jurisdiction and admissibility of the writ petition.
  2. Relevance of subsequent criminal court acquittal on quasi-judicial proceedings.
  3. Examination of evidence and procedural fairness by Adjudicating Authority.
  4. Legal implications of conflicting judgments from different tribunals.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Jurisdiction and Admissibility of the Writ Petition:
  The court acknowledged that typically, an appeal under Sections 35G/35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would lie to the High Court. However, given that the writ petition was admitted in 2002 after hearing both parties and had been pending for 12 years, the court decided to hear the writ petition on merits rather than dismiss it on the ground of alternative remedy.
  
  2. Relevance of Subsequent Criminal Court Acquittal on Quasi-Judicial Proceedings:
  The petitioner argued that the Tribunal's decision should be reconsidered in light of the subsequent acquittal by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offences (Revenue), Jaipur. The criminal court had found no case of clandestine removal of goods, acquitting the partners of the assessee firm on the same set of facts and evidence. The court emphasized that findings of criminal courts are relevant and cannot be ignored by quasi-judicial tribunals when based on the same facts and evidence.
  
  3. Examination of Evidence and Procedural Fairness by Adjudicating Authority:
  The petitioner contended that the Adjudicating Authority failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of key witnesses, including Mr. Kapil Gupta, whose confessional statement was retracted. The court noted that the Adjudicating Authority did not exercise its powers under Section 14 of the Act to summon witnesses or alleged purchasers, thereby questioning the procedural fairness of the demand and penalty imposed.
  
  4. Legal Implications of Conflicting Judgments from Different Tribunals:
  The court examined the legal principle that while quasi-judicial proceedings are independent, findings from competent criminal courts on the same facts and evidence should not be disregarded. Citing various judgments, including Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the court highlighted that conflicting judgments from different tribunals on the same facts undermine the rule of law and fair play. The court concluded that when subsequent criminal court findings contradict quasi-judicial decisions, the matter should be remanded for reconsideration.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court decided to remand the case back to the Central Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) for fresh consideration in light of the subsequent acquittal by the criminal court. This decision aims to ensure that the petitioner is not subjected to conflicting findings from different tribunals, thus upholding the principles of justice and fair play. The writ petition was disposed of, and the CEGAT was directed to reconsider the appeal of the assessee afresh.

  ---

• 2007 (1) TMI 161
  

  Initially in 1989 though alternative remedy by way of appeal against the order of Asst. Comm. was available still writ petition (W.P.) was filed, which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy - Petitioner again challenged the order of Comm. (A) by way of the present W.P. in 2002 though there was alternative remedy - Despite the W.P., petitioner filed appeal before Tribunal which was decided - after the decision of the Tribunal present W.P. has become infructuous, so dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (1) TMI 160
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of taxable net wealth under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 regarding a refund received from the Coffee Board.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment delivered by the High Court of MADRAS involved a tax case reference under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for the assessment year 1990-91. The primary question raised was whether an amount of Rs. 43,25,266 received by the assessee from the Coffee Board, being a refund of sales tax, should be considered as part of the taxable net wealth. The assessee argued that since the amount might have to be returned to the government if the decision favored the Coffee Board, it should not be included in the wealth. However, the Assessing Authority disagreed and included the sum in the wealth.
  
  Upon appeal, the Commissioner rejected the assessee's claim, stating that the amount remained with the assessee and hence should be part of the wealth. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, leading to the reference to the High Court. The counsel for the assessee contended that the amount was held in trust, and the property would only become absolute upon revocation of the undertaking to refund the sum in case of an adverse decision against the Coffee Board.
  
  The Revenue's counsel supported the Tribunal's decision, highlighting the indemnity provided by the assessee to the Coffee Board. The Court agreed with the Revenue's submission, emphasizing that the liability on the amount received had been confirmed by the Tribunal in relation to the Income-tax Act proceedings. The Tribunal noted that no action had been taken by the tax authorities to confirm the liability on the Coffee Board, and the issue was settled by the Supreme Court.
  
  The Court found no merit in the assessee's argument to interfere with the Tribunal's order. It was observed that the character of the receipt would not change based on the undertaking to return the amount under certain conditions. Therefore, considering the treatment and acceptance by the assessee, the question was answered against the assessee, affirming that the amount received should be part of the taxable net wealth. No costs were awarded in this judgment.

  ---

• 2007 (1) TMI 159
  
  The High Court of Bombay ruled on a case regarding reopening of assessment orders under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. The court directed that if objections are rejected, the Assessing Officer must not proceed further for four weeks to allow the assessee time to challenge. The Income-tax Officer must strictly follow this procedure in all cases of reopening assessments.

  ---

• 2007 (1) TMI 158
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Effective date of amalgamation.
  2. Interpretation of "appointed day" in the context of the amalgamation order.
  3. Validity and impact of the clarification dated March 17, 1993.
  4. Applicability of judicial precedents on the effective date of amalgamation.
  
  Summary:
  
  Effective Date of Amalgamation:
  The primary issue was whether the amalgamation of OMC Alloys Ltd. with Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. became effective from August 30, 1991, as per the gazette notification, or from April 1, 1986, as per the clarification issued by the Department of Company Affairs. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's stance that the merger took effect from August 30, 1991, but the High Court disagreed, holding that the effective date of amalgamation is April 1, 1986.
  
  Interpretation of "Appointed Day":
  The court examined the definition of "appointed day" in the amalgamation order, which was the date of notification in the Official Gazette (August 30, 1991). However, the court found that for accounting purposes, clause 4(2) of the order specified April 1, 1986, as the effective date, and this was supported by clause 8 regarding taxation.
  
  Validity and Impact of the Clarification:
  The court considered the clarification dated March 17, 1993, which stated that the effective date for all intents and purposes regarding the amalgamation shall be April 1, 1986. The court rejected the Revenue's argument that the clarification lacked legal basis, emphasizing that it was issued by the Government of India and must be considered in interpreting the amalgamation order.
  
  Applicability of Judicial Precedents:
  The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Marshall Sons and Co. (India) Ltd. v. ITO, which held that the effective date of amalgamation is the date specified in the scheme unless modified by the court. The court also referred to the Privy Council's decision in Raghubar Dayal v. Bank of Upper India Ltd., which supported the principle that an agreement becomes binding from the date it is made, subject to court sanction.
  
  Conclusion:
  The High Court concluded that the effective date of amalgamation is April 1, 1986, and directed the Tribunal to decide the matters accordingly. The references were answered in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 2007 (1) TMI 157
  
  Issues:
  - Challenge to the quashing of authorisation and impounding order
  - Interpretation of Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961
  - Jurisdiction of the officer issuing the authorisation
  - Validity of retaining authenticated copies of impounded documents
  - Compliance with procedural requirements for impounding documents
  
  Challenge to the Quashing of Authorisation and Impounding Order:
  The appellants, income-tax authorities, challenged the order of a learned single judge quashing the authorisation and impounding order issued against the respondent. The appellants argued that the order should be set aside to prevent adverse effects on public interest. They contended that failure by the respondent to provide names and addresses of persons whose documents were impounded hindered further proceedings. The appellants relied on Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and argued that any procedural irregularity could be cured under Section 292B of the Act.
  
  Interpretation of Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
  The High Court examined Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, which empowers the Income-tax Officer to survey business premises and impound documents for further action. The Court emphasized the need for officers to exercise such powers while respecting the rights of citizens under the Act. The Court agreed with the learned single judge's decision to allow retention of authenticated copies of impounded documents.
  
  Jurisdiction of the Officer Issuing the Authorisation:
  The respondent argued that the officer who issued the authorisation lacked jurisdiction, rendering the action illegal and not merely irregular. Citing previous decisions, the respondent contended that such illegality could not be cured. The Court examined relevant documents and admissions by the appellants, ultimately supporting the respondent's argument regarding the lack of jurisdiction.
  
  Validity of Retaining Authenticated Copies of Impounded Documents:
  The Court acknowledged the respondent's argument that no reasons were provided for retaining the impounded documents. Citing a decision from the Allahabad High Court, the Court emphasized the importance of complying with statutory requirements, highlighting the consequences of non-compliance. The Court agreed with the learned single judge's decision to allow retention of authenticated copies.
  
  Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Impounding Documents:
  In addressing concerns raised by the Department regarding the potential impact on public interest and the effective functioning of officers without original documents, the Court provided further clarifications and directions. The respondent was instructed to provide details of persons whose documents were impounded, and the appellants were directed to return original documents upon receiving the necessary information. Specific conditions were outlined for the return and handling of original documents to ensure compliance with procedural requirements.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the writ appeal by issuing clarifications and directions to address the concerns raised by the Department while upholding the decision to allow retention of authenticated copies of impounded documents.

  ---

• 2007 (1) TMI 156
  
  Issues:
  1. Whether the Tribunal was right in allowing a deduction for the replacement of machinery as revenue expenditure?
  2. Whether replacement of independent complete machinery can be treated as revenue expenditure?
  3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in deciding the issue without considering the concept of block of assets?
  
  Analysis:
  The High Court of MADRAS heard an appeal against the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order concerning the disallowance of a claim for replacement expenditure of machinery as capital expenditure for the assessment year 2001-02. The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee, raising questions regarding the treatment of the replacement expenditure. The court referred to a previous decision in CIT v. Janakiram Mills Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 403, where it was held that the treatment of machinery replacement as capital or revenue expenditure should be determined by the provisions of the Income-tax Act, not accounting practices.
  
  Regarding the first two questions, the court reiterated that the treatment of replacement machinery expenditure should align with the Act's provisions. The Tribunal's decision to consider the replacement as revenue expenditure was upheld based on the precedent set in the Janakiram Mills case, where it was established that each replaced machine could not be seen as independent, and the expenditure was deemed revenue in nature.
  
  In addressing the third question about the block of assets concept, the court explained the purpose of introducing this concept and its inapplicability to the nature of the expenditure incurred by the respondent. The court emphasized that the block of assets concept aimed to streamline depreciation provisions and allow terminal depreciation, which was not relevant to the case at hand. The court highlighted that no new assets were acquired, and the replacement of worn-out machinery parts did not result in enduring capital advantage.
  
  Furthermore, the court noted that no claim for depreciation related to block of assets was made by either party before the authorities, and the Department did not object to the claim of allowance based on the block of assets concept. Citing previous decisions, including CIT v. Loyal Textile Mills Ltd. [2006] 284 ITR 658, the court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with no costs incurred.

  ---

• 2007 (1) TMI 155
  

  Claimed exemption u/s 10(5) read with rule 2B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Expenses incurred by the employees on account of LTC - Orders passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) - HELD THAT:-Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the assessee had reimbursed the expenses incurred by its employees for LTC after obtaining all the information in the prescribed pro forma then the assessee is entitled to exemption. Moreover, the accounts were subjected to verification by the auditors appointed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and no discrepancy has been pointed out by the auditors. The Assessing Officer has failed to point out any specific instance where the expenses have been reimbursed to an employee on the basis of a fraudulent or wrong certificate given by him/her.

  Moreover, there are categorical findings by the Tribunal that the exemption for LTC deserved to be granted to the assessee-company because the declaration filed in the prescribed pro forma by the assessee gives full details of the journey undertaken by the employee and the expenses actually incurred by them. The action of the assessee-company has been found to be bona fide.

  In view of the above, we do not find that any question of law would arise warranting admission of the appeal because the fact as to whether an employee of the assessee-company had undertaken the journey to avail of LTC and has claimed the same bona fide is necessarily a question of fact. The Tribunal after going into the detailed certificate furnished on the prescribed pro forma by the employees of the assessee-company have found that full details of journey undertaken by them along with expenses incurred have been given. If that be so, then no question of law would arise because these are pure questions of fact.

  Therefore, both the appeals are decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

  ---

• 2007 (1) TMI 154
  
  Issues Involved: The judgment involves issues related to the treatment of replacement expenditure of machinery, inclusion of excise duty and sales tax in turnover for deduction under section 80HHC, and the concept of block of assets.
  
  Treatment of Replacement Expenditure of Machinery:
  The appeal concerned the disallowance of the claim of the assessee for replacement expenditure of machinery as capital expenditure instead of revenue expenditure for the assessment year 1996-97. The Appellate Tribunal and Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had both ruled in favor of the assessee. The High Court held that the treatment of expenditure on replacement of machinery as capital or revenue should be determined by the provisions of the Act, not by the accounting practice of the assessee. The court referred to a previous decision where it was established that replacement of machinery constitutes revenue expenditure, and each replaced machine could not be considered as independent. Therefore, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in allowing the claim of the assessee.
  
  Inclusion of Excise Duty and Sales Tax in Turnover for Deduction under Section 80HHC:
  The issue raised was whether excise duty and sales tax collections should be included in the turnover while calculating the deduction under section 80HHC. The High Court referred to previous decisions where it was held that excise duty and sales tax components, being indirect taxes, should not be included in the turnover for the purpose of calculating the deduction under section 80HHC. The court emphasized that these statutory dues do not represent any element of profit of the business. Therefore, the High Court ruled that sales tax collections should not be included in the total turnover for computing the deduction under section 80HHC.
  
  Concept of Block of Assets:
  Regarding the concept of "Block of assets," the High Court explained the principle and object of introducing this concept in detail. It was clarified that in the case at hand, where the assessee had replaced machinery without discontinuing production activities and without acquiring any new asset of enduring advantage, the question of block of assets did not arise. The court highlighted that no claim for depreciation was made by either party, and the Department did not object to the claim of allowance based on the block of assets concept. Therefore, the High Court concluded that the question of block of assets did not arise for consideration in the appeal.
  
  Conclusion:
  The High Court dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration based on the established principles and precedents cited in the judgment. The court upheld the decisions of the Tribunal and previous rulings related to the treatment of replacement expenditure, inclusion of excise duty and sales tax in turnover, and the concept of block of assets.

  ---

• 2007 (1) TMI 153
  
  Issues involved: The judgment involves four main issues raised by the Revenue before the High Court.
  
  Issue 1 - Nature of Expenditure for Pot Relining:
  The assessee, engaged in mining and production of aluminum, incurred expenses for relining of smelter pots. The dispute arose regarding whether such expenditure constituted "current repairs" or capital expenditure. The Supreme Court's interpretation of "current repairs" in Ballimal Naval Kishore v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 414 was considered, emphasizing that repairs should not bring a new asset into existence. The High Court held that since the relining did not result in a new asset or advantage, the expenditure was revenue in nature, aligning with past decisions like CIT v. Volga Restaurant [2002] 253 ITR 405.
  
  Issue 2 - Depreciation on Buildings without Legal Ownership:
  The Revenue contended that depreciation was wrongly allowed for buildings where the assessee lacked legal ownership. Citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Mysore Minerals Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 239 ITR 775, the High Court found no substantial question of law on this issue, as the matter was settled.
  
  Issue 3 - Depreciation on Unauthorizedly Occupied Properties:
  The Revenue argued that depreciation could not be claimed for properties unauthorizedly occupied and not used for business purposes. However, this issue was not addressed before the Tribunal, and the High Court declined to consider it further due to lack of information on any rectification application under section 254(2) of the Act.
  
  Issue 4 - Validity of Order Passed by Commissioner u/s 154:
  The final issue raised was regarding the Commissioner of Income-tax passing an order under section 154 of the Act without proper service to the assessee. The Tribunal found that although the order was captioned under section 154, the Commissioner had reconsidered the matter after hearing both parties. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that no substantial question of law arose from this technical error.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the Revenue's contentions across the various issues raised.

  ---

• 2007 (1) TMI 152
  
  Issues involved: Appeal u/s 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding addition of income u/s 68 of the Act.
  
  Summary:
  The High Court heard an appeal u/s 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had rejected the appeal of the Revenue and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated August 31, 2004, which set aside the order of assessment made by the Assessing Officer by adding income of Rs. 48,000. The issue revolved around unsecured loans from various persons, specifically Rs. 64,640 from one individual and Rs. 80,000 from his family members. The Tribunal accepted the identity of the persons providing the loans and the transactions were made through bank drafts or cheques, indicating their credit-worthiness. The Tribunal also considered gifts given by relatives of the assessee, who were income-tax assessees, and found no questions regarding their credit-worthiness were raised. The High Court concluded that no substantive question of law warranting admission of the appeal existed, as the Tribunal's findings were based on factual determinations regarding the identity and credit-worthiness of the individuals involved. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
  
  The Tribunal's decision was based on accepting the identity of the individuals providing loans and gifts to the assessee, along with the mode of transactions being through bank drafts or cheques, indicating their credit-worthiness. The Tribunal specifically noted that no questions regarding the credit-worthiness of these individuals were raised before the appellate authority or elsewhere. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's findings, stating that questions of fact, such as credit-worthiness and identity of the persons involved, were not within the purview of the court to determine. As a result, the High Court found no substantive question of law for admission of the appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
  
  The High Court emphasized that the Tribunal's acceptance of the identity of the persons providing loans and gifts, coupled with the mode of transactions being through bank drafts or cheques, implied their credit-worthiness. The Tribunal also considered the confirmations of credit-worthiness filed by relatives of the assessee who had given gifts, further supporting the credibility of the transactions. The High Court reiterated that questions of fact, such as credit-worthiness and identity, were not within the court's jurisdiction to determine, and as such, no substantive question of law arose for admission of the appeal. Consequently, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

  ---

• 2007 (1) TMI 151
  
  Issues involved: Challenge to rectification order restricting unabsorbed business loss, interpretation of jurisdiction under section 154 of the Income-tax Act.
  
  Summary:
  The High Court of Madras heard an appeal by the Revenue challenging a Tribunal's order on rectification to restrict unabsorbed business loss. The Revenue contended that the assessee could only set off carry forward loss to the extent of business income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that the issue was not rectifiable under section 154 due to conflicting views. The Tribunal agreed with this view, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the High Court.
  
  The Revenue argued that if an assessment is contrary to the law, it cannot be considered arguable, thus falling under the scope of section 154. On the other hand, the respondent/assessee's counsel emphasized the conflicting views and arguable issue, stating that section 154 was not applicable for correcting any apparent error.
  
  The High Court agreed with the assessee that the order referred to section 154, and thus, sustaining it under other provisions of the Act was not acceptable. The court highlighted that a mistake under section 154 must be obvious and patent, not a debatable point of law. Previous court decisions were cited to support the interpretation of section 154 and the limited scope of rectification.
  
  Considering the conflicting opinions and the timing of the decision on the relief claim, the High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the claim was considered long after invoking jurisdiction under section 154. The court found no justification to accept the Revenue's plea and accordingly dismissed the appeal without costs.

  ---

• 2007 (1) TMI 150
  
  Issues involved: Appeal filed u/s 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 challenging order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding computation of correct depreciation and consequential taxable income.
  
  Summary:
  The High Court, Punjab and Haryana, heard an appeal challenging the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order denying the appellant to raise an additional ground of appeal related to depreciation calculation and taxable income. The court noted that an additional ground can be raised u/s 254 of the Income-tax Act before the Tribunal if it involves a question of law arising from facts on record in the assessment proceedings. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383, the court emphasized that the Tribunal has the discretion to allow a new ground to be raised, especially when it is necessary to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee. In this case, the additional ground regarding depreciation allowance was found to have all relevant facts on record, and thus, the Tribunal was directed to consider this ground under rule 11 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. The impugned order of the Tribunal was set aside, and the Tribunal was instructed to address the additional ground in accordance with the law. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

  ---

1 ....202122232425262728........ 32