|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1381 Records
-
2023 (1) TMI 1281 - DELHI HIGH COURT
TDS on payments made to local authorities, including New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [“NOIDA ”] - order passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) - HELD THAT:- Although the petitioner-bank has slept over its rights, we are prima facie of the view that since public money is involved, and because both the petitioner-bank and the NOIDA fall in the category of entities which deal with public funds, the respondents/revenue could consider repaying the money to the petitioner-bank for onward transmission to NOIDA.
We may note that the NOIDA has been following up the matter, despite which, the petitioner-bank did not act with alacrity. Given this position, NOIDA may have a case for recovering the interest from petitioner-bank if we were to grant the relief, as sought in the writ petition.
Insofar as this writ action is concerned, our remit is limited to the relief sought by the petitioner-bank, which as noted above, is for issuance of a direction to quash the order dated 28.02.2013.
Revenue, says that he will return with instructions. List the matter on 27.01.2023.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1280 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition u/s 68 - transaction/trading of the scrip (M/s. VAS) was speculative in nature and due to rigging, the price of the scrip was artificially increased or decreased to accommodate beneficiaries of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG)/loss /Short Term Capital Gain/loss - assessee brought to the notice of the AO that he is a non-resident Canadian Citizen of Indian Origin and has appointed a Professional Investment Advisor and Portfolio Manager recognized by the BSE and NSE. And that the investments/trading are carried out by the portfolio manager on behalf of assessee and as such assessee has no knowledge of this company M/s. VAS and therefore has no intention of doing the alleged money laundering
HELD THAT:- This is a case wherein the Maxim- Res Ipsa loquitor-applies- meaning “Things speaks for itself”. Looking at the over-all facts it can be presumed that assessee has not indulged in any nefarious activity as alleged in the DDIT information of persons who traded in the shares of M/s. VAS. She is a Canadian Citizen of Indian Origin has suffered heavy losses to the tune of more than a crores of Rupees, and has made investment through Professional Portfolio Manager (recognized by BSE & NSE), so it cannot be presumed that she would indulge in money laundering for a mere short term capital gain of Rs.93,597/- (which has been offered to taxation) in the ROI filed on 31.07.2012.
On the facts noted supra it is presumed that the assessee was an innocent/gullible regular investor in share market and has burned her fingers and made a modest gain of Rs.93,597/- which has been taxed. And the AO erred in again taxing on the basis of general investigation report which does not have any material against the assessee.
It would be apt to remind ourselves that the maxim falsus in unus false in Omnibus” meaning ‘false in one thing false in everything’’ has no application in India. Merely because some person misused the share market to rig certain shares in the share market for nefarious purpose, cannot be the ground to draw adverse view against innocent regular investors like assessee. So we decline to interfere with the action of the Ld. CIT(A) who rightly deleted the addition made by the AO without an iota of evidence against the assessee and without being part of any wrong doing. So the revenue appeal is dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1279 - SUPREME COURT
Condonation of delay in filing first appeal - only reason assigned by the appellant for the delay of 254 days in filing the First Appeal was that he was not having sufficient funds to pay the court fee - sufficient reasons for delay or not - Suit for specific performance - CHELD THAT:- In Mannan Lal [1970 (4) TMI 157 - SUPREME COURT], this aspect was dealt in rather detail, where the Court referred to several decisions of different High Courts on interpretation of Section 149 CPC and Section 4 of Court Fees Act. It particularly referred to the decision of the Allahabad High Court which is S. Wajid Ali v. Mt. Isar Bano Urf Isar Fatima & Ors. [1950 (9) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that a court has to exercise its discretion for allowing a deficiency of court fees to be made good but once it was done, a document was to be deemed to have been presented and received on the date when it was originally filed, and not on the date when the defects were cured.
There are no case at hand where the appellant is not capable of purchasing the court fee. He did pay the court fee ultimately, though belatedly. But then, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons assigned for the delay in filing the appeal cannot be a valid reason for condonation of the delay, since the appellant could have filed the appeal deficient in court fee under the provisions of law. Therefore, it is found that the High Court was right in dismissing Section 5 application of the appellant as insufficient funds could not have been a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, under the facts and circumstance of the case. It would have been entirely a different matter had the appellant filed an appeal in terms of Section 149 CPC and thereafter removed the defects by paying deficit court fees. This has evidently not been done.
This is a fit case which calls for interference. The facts of the case are that one, M/s. Himalayan Ski Village Pvt. Ltd. had entered into an ‘Agreement for Sale’ with an agriculturist/landowner of Himachal Pradesh, for sale of his agricultural land. Now the admitted position in the State of Himachal Pradesh is that under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short ‘1972 Act’), only an agriculturist, which is defined under Section 2(2) of the 1972 Act, can purchase land in Himachal Pradesh, which would mean a landowner who personally cultivates his land in Himachal Pradesh.
In the present case the assignment is not valid as there was no prior consent or approval of the seller before the assignment. In the absence of such a condition and in lieu of the fact that before assignment of its rights to the plaintiff/Appellant herein no permission of the seller was obtained, there was no question of granting a decree of Specific Performance in favour of the plaintiff. Consequently, this is not a case which calls for interference.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1278 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI
Validity of demand notice issued in terms of Section 8 of IBC - case of appellant is that the ‘Demand Notice’ was defective because it was sent by Jignesh Ajit Ganatra, who was subsequently appointed as IRP by the impugned order and the said IRP was a related party in terms of Section 5(24)(h) of the Code - HELD THAT:- A close scrutiny of the Section 5(24)(h) of IBC would show, firstly, that it relates to the Corporate Debtor and not to the Operational Creditor and secondly the Appellant was to lead evidence that the Director, Partner or Manager was accustomed to act on the directions or instructions of the said IP. Therefore, Section 5(24)(h) of the Code is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and thus the arguments raised in this regard, is hereby rejected - the provision is not applicable because the dispute is between two corporate entities and not in respect of the individuals.
Whether an application under section 9 of the Code cannot proceed in view of fact that the principal amount has already been paid and only the component of interest is remaining? - HELD THAT:- It is to be seen at the time of the threshold when the application is filed under Section 9 of the Code as to whether it is pertaining only to the component of interest - the second contention is hereby rejected.
It is pertinent to mention that this court was of the view that in order to help the Corporate Debtor to remain a going concern, some time be provided to the Corporate Debtor for the purpose of settling its ‘debts’ before the CoC is constituted but despite taking so many dates and even on 06.01.2023, a specific order was passed but the Appellant has failed to consolidate funds for the purpose of discharging his liability not only towards the Respondent who is the Operational Creditor but also towards various Interveners who had filed applications during the pendency of this Appeal.
There are no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1277 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - petition disposed off on the ground that Appellant ought to have filed an Appeal before the Appellate authority and liberty was also given to him to file such Appeal before the Appellate authority within a period of thirty days - HELD THAT:- There are merit in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant inasmuch as the impugned order of assessment has been made by the assessing officer without even applying his mind to the submission of the appellant, in particular to the order of the Tribunal holding that mere sales of goods on the same day by itself would not be conclusive in determining the character/ nature of the transfer from one state to another as Stock transfer (or) sale. The above order of the Tribunal ought to have been dealt with by the assessing officer. Failure to do so would vitiate the order. We make it very clear that we have not examined the decision but only decision making process which we find suffers from the infirmity of non application of mind to relevant aspects/factors raised by the assessee/appellant.
The order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.10.2017 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the authority concerned.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1276 - ITAT MUMBAI
Unaccounted commission earned - bogus LTCG in penny stock by floating paper companies - HELD THAT:- From the investigation conducted by Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department and assessment proceedings, it is proved on record that assessee being into the business of providing accommodation entries for unsecured loan, share application money, long term capital gain, for bogus sales and purchases, for entries of turnover trading and accommodation entries for facilitating exempt income from bogus LTCG in penny stock by floating paper companies and by charging commissions, which is nothing but a fraud on the state exchequer, i.e. it is an illegal business of money lanundering.
Assessee was also into providing accommodation entry in the form of circular transactions by securing bogus purchase bills of various nature like capital goods, trading raw materials, etc., then convert the same into cheque and RTCG from one dummy concern to the main beneficiary or in the sister concern in the form of share application money.
AO as well as Ld.CIT(A), after duly thrashing the issue factually as well as legally estimated the commission income having earned by assessee during the years under consideration on different transactions for loans and advances for share application money for purchase and sales, etc.
As brought to the notice of the Bench by the Ld.DR for the Revenue that in hundreds of cases, Shri Pravin Kumar Jain has provided accommodation entry for unsecured loans, bogus share application money, etc. without carrying out any real business, but operating through dummy / paper companies.
AO as well as Ld.CIT(A have rightly quantified the unaccounted commission earned by the assessees during the year under consideration from 54 companies which is nothing but a huge network of unlawful business to evade the tax for companies operating through them and by the assessee themselves also. Rather, they are in to money laundering.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1275 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s 80P (2)(d) - interest income from Co-Op Bank in respect of its surplus funds deposited by framing the assessment u/s 143(3) - HELD THAT:- Allowability of deduction claimed by the Assessee Society u/s 80P (2)(d) is no longer Res-Integra as the same has already been decided by the Tribunal in number of cases in favour of the Assessee liked in Palm Court M Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. [2022 (9) TMI 650 - ITAT MUMBAI] decided the issue in favour of the assessee by distinguishing the judgment rendered in case of Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd.[2010 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it is held that interest income earned by the Co-operative Society on its investment made with co-operative bank would be eligible for claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d).
Thus we are of the considered view that the Assessee is entitled for deduction claimed u/d 80P(2)(d) being the interest earned in respect of its surplus funds deposited with Co-Op Bank. Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1274 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Superseding of DTAA over Domestic law - scope for deduction of tax @ 20% u/s 206AA - TDS provisions to be read along with DTAA for computing the tax liability - whether section 206AA of the applicable even when the non resident payee does not have PAN and also in view of CBDT Circular No.5 of 2010 and Notification dated 24-6-2016? - HELD THAT:- The questions of law raised in this appeal, are covered by the decision of M/S. WIPRO LTD.[2023 (1) TMI 173 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] as held Section 206AA cannot be understood to override the charging Sections 4 and 5 of the Act. Provision in Section 206-AA has to be read down to mean that where the deductee i.e., the overseas resident business concern conducts its operation from a territory, whose Government has entered into a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with India, the rate of taxation would be as dictated by the provisions of the treaty.
When it was pointed out to Revenue he does not dispute the same in his usual fairness.In view of above, this appeal is dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1273 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Rejection of Section 9 application - default in payment of the interest amount - Appellant had filed earlier an Application under Section 9 in the year 2017 which was withdrawn on settlement entered into between the parties - appellant contends that liberty was granted in the consent terms/settlement agreement that in event any breach is committed, the Application be revived - HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authority did not commit any error in rejecting Section 9 Application. It has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SWISS RIBBONS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2019 (1) TMI 1508 - SUPREME COURT], IBC is not a recovery proceeding and the Application which has been filed by the appellant in the present case is only the application for recovery of balance amount of the interest and application was not filed for resolution of any insolvency of the Corporate Debtor.
Thus, no error has been committed by the Adjudicating Authority in rejecting Section 9 Application filed by the Appellant. There is no merit in the Appeal, the Appeal is dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1272 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay of 38 Days in refiling of the Appeal against approval of Resolution plan - ground in application is Appellant is a government body and there are number of formalities involved in the preparation, filing and refiling of the Appeal - HELD THAT:- The delay in filing the Appeal is beyond 15 days and the Application itself mentions the delay of 29 days in filing the Appeal. Jurisdiction is limited only to 15 days under Section 61(2) proviso of the IBC, 2016 hence the delay in filing the Appeal cannot be condoned.
The law is well settled that limitation for filing the Appeal shall begin on the date when order is pronounced and the mere fact that Appellant became aware on 14.09.2022 is not relevant for purposes of limitation - There being delay of more than 15 days, Application for condoning the delay is dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1271 - DELHI HIGH COURT
TP Adjustment - selection of MAM - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee own case [2018 (10) TMI 1785 - ITAT DELHI] TNMM is most appropriate method under such circumstances instead of CUP. Considering fact that assessee is a low risk service provider and that there is no change in FAR from assessment year 2003-04 to 2018-19 as has been observed by this Tribunal in preceding assessment year, we do not find any reason to deviate by adopting any other method other than TNMM. Respectfully following view taken by this Tribunal in preceding years, we remand the issue back to file of Ld. TPO to examine and benchmark international transaction by adopting TNMM as most appropriate method by taking Berry ratio as PLI, as has been approved by Hon‟ble High Court.
The record does not seem to suggest to us that there is any diametric change in circumstances and facts, as recorded by the Tribunal in its order dated 22.10.2018[supra].
At this stage, we may also note that Respondent says that insofar as AY 2012-13 is concerned, there is an upward adjustment, therefore, according to him, if this adjustment is taken into account, the tax impact would be less than the prescribed monetary threshold limit.
Appellant however, says that the fate of the said appeal will not be determined on the basis of tax impact since this is not an appeal that pertains to deletion of the adjustment made. This aspect of the matter will be examined on the next date of hearing.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1270 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance being payment towards administrative expenses - HELD THAT:- From the debit notes placed in the paper-book, it is observed, the cost incurred by M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. for other companies, including assessee includes, car lease rent, traveling expenses, printing and stationary, professional expenses, office maintenance expenses, electricity and water expenses, corporate expenses like salary etc., computer maintenance expenses, telephone expenses etc.
Thus, from the materials available on record it is noticeable that the assessee, in fact, has availed certain facilities and service for which, payments have been made.
From the history of such payments made, it is further evident that beginning from 2007-08, the expenditure claimed has been allowed in all assessment years, past and future, except, the impugned assessment year. It is relevant to observe, in assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11, Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed such expenses. Thus, we are of the view that the assessee having incurred the expenses for its business, is entitled to claim deduction. Accordingly, we delete the disallowance.
Disallowance of miscellaneous expenses - no supporting evidence for incurring of the expenditure was furnished - HELD THAT:- Expenses are incurred under various heads, such as, market development expenditure, professional fee, gardening and housekeeping charges, head office reimbursement, reimbursement of top managements, directors expenses, office maintenance, factory maintenance, security charges, wastages and disposals, computer maintenance, printing and stationary etc. However, no supporting evidence, even sample copies of vouchers and bills have been submitted by the assessee, at any stage. It is also relevant to observe, on perusal of agreement with M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. for availing certain services and facilities, it is observed that some of the expenditure claimed as miscellaneous expenses are common to the expenses/payments made for availing certain facilities and services. Therefore, the burden is on the assessee to establish the claim through authentic evidence. No material has been placed on record by the assessee to establish such claim. - Decided against assessee.
Disallowance representing employees contribution to Provident Fund (PF) - case of the assessee that the payment having been made within the due date of filing of return of income, it has to be allowed - HELD THAT:- As in a recent decision in case of Checkmate Services Pvt ltd [2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT] has laid down the ratio that unless employee’s contribution to PF is remitted within the due date prescribed under section 36(1)(va) of the Act, no deduction can be allowed - we remit the issue to the AO to factually verify the actual date of payment by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue in the light of the ratio laid down in case of Checkmate Services Pvt. ltd. (supra). Ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1269 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Revision u/s 264 - validity of Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice u/s 148 was not validly served - HELD THAT:- The assessment order takes note of the fact that the notice issued under section 148 of Income Tax Act was served upon the Assessee and categorical findings has been recorded and the assessment order was passed.
As there was no challenge to the findings recorded by the Assessing Authority, the Revisional Authority has not ventured into the arena and has dismissed the revision of the Assessee. The argument raised by the petitioner has no legs to stand as the findings recorded by the Assessing Authority was not put to challenge by the Assessee before any Forum. Raising of plea before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as the findings recorded by the Assessing Authority was never challenged before the Appellate/Revisional Forum.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1268 - SC ORDER
Validity of closure report accepted by the Ld. Magistrate - HELD THAT:- The criminal proceedings are closed at this stage. However, at later stage, if any change in circumstances arises, the respondent is at liberty to take appropriate steps available under the law including recall of the present order, if so advised.
SLP disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1267 - SUPREME COURT
Setting aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of the powers under Section 482, CrPC - offences under Sections 124A, 153A, 504, 505(1)(b) and 505(2) of the IPC in exercise of powers under Section 482, CrPC - HELD THAT:- From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and the reasoning given by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings as if the High Court was conducting the mini trial.
The scope and ambiguity of powers to be exercised under Section 482, CrPC has been elaborately dealt with and considered by this Court in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (4) TMI 1244 - SUPREME COURT].
Even otherwise, it is a settled position of law that while exercising powers under Section 482, CrPC, the High Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. What is required to be considered at that stage is the nature of accusations and allegations in the FIR and whether the averments/allegations in the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of the cognizable offence or not.
As per the settled position of law, it is the right conferred upon the Investigating Agency to conduct the investigation and reasonable time should be given to the Investigating Agency to conduct the investigation unless it is found that the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any cognizable offence at all or the complaint is barred by any law. Under the circumstances also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing and setting aside the criminal proceedings deserves to be quashed and set aside.
The impugned judgment order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings is hereby quashed and set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1266 - ITAT DELHI
Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice - not strike off the appropriate portion of the notice specifying the charge of the penalty - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has deleted the penalty on the ground that the AO did not strike off the appropriate portion of the notice specifying the charge of the penalty. This fact has not been disputed by the Revenue.
In such circumstances when the relevant limb of penalty notice is not ticked specifying the charge of the assessee, it has been held in various case laws as referred above in CIT(A)’s order, the penalty notice is invalid. Hence, on this count only, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). We hold that the CIT(A) is correct in holding that in such circumstances, the penalty levied is not sustainable. Appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1265 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Request for refund rejected on the ground of time limitation - Availment of alternative remedy - HELD THAT:- It is trite that alternative remedy itself is no reason to reject a writ petition when it can be shown that the impugned orders are ex facie contrary to the settled propositions, including positive directions by the higher Courts. If it is undisputed that the limitation for the petitioner’s subject refund applications expired during the period between 01.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, the petitioner would be entitled for an extended limitation of ninety [90] days from 01.03.2022 and the applications are within this time, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order sustained.
The petition is allowed quashing the impugned orders dated 20.07.2022 in Nos.44/2022, 45/2022 and 46/2022 (Annexures – A, A-1 and A-2) by the third respondent and the petitioner’s refund applications are restored for reconsideration.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1264 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Continuance of the pending proceedings once the proceedings commenced by institution of application Insolvency Resolution Proceedings - HELD THAT:- A reading of the provisions under section 13 and 14 of the Code along with the decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons [2021 (4) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT] clearly shows that once the proceedings have commenced by institution of application under section 7 or 9 or 10 of the Code, the continuance of the pending proceedings is prohibited and when once they reach the logical conclusion with due approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority under sub section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders.
At any rate, for the time being, these appeals cannot be proceeded with during the continuance of the proceedings under the Code. Depending upon the result of such proceedings before the adjudicating authority in respect of the corporate debtor, appropriate steps if any, may be taken by the appellant/respondent. We, therefore, granting leave to the appellant/respondent in this appeal to seek the restoration of the appeals, if necessitated by the orders in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings, dismiss the appeals in limine. We derive support for the above proposition from the decision in the case of Mahavir Roads & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,[2022 (6) TMI 1294 - ITAT MUMBAI]
-
2023 (1) TMI 1263 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of foreign exchange loss by the AO and confirmed by the DRP - HELD THAT:- As relying on case Woodward Governor India [2009 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] we direct the Assessing officer to delete the addition of foreign exchange loss.
ESOP scheme & expenditure and provisions of law on the allowability of claim - HELD THAT:- We found that in the case of CIT(LTU) VS M/S Biocon Ltd [2020 (11) TMI 779 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] as held deduction of discount on ESOP over the vesting period is in accordance with the accounting in the books of accounts, which has been prepared in accordance with Securities And Exchange Board of India (Employee Stock Option Scheme and Employee Stock Purchase Scheme) Guidelines, 1999. Assessee has incurred a definite legal liability and on following the mercantile system of accounting, the discount on ESOPs has rightly been debited as expenditure in the books of accounts. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken in PVP Ventures Ltd. [2012 (7) TMI 696 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] And Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd. [2015 (11) TMI 404 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1262 - ITAT DELHI
Rectification u/s 254(2) - whats apparent mistake rectifiable? - HELD THAT:- We find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ras Bihari Bansal [2007 (4) TMI 47 - HIGH COURT, NEW DELHI] has held that an oversight of a fact cannot constitute an apparent mistake rectifiable u/s. 254(2) of the Act. It has further held that failure of the Tribunal to consider the argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion, is not an error apparent from record, although it may be an error of judgment. In the grab of an application for rectification it is not permissible to the parties to reopen and reargue the whole matter.
We further find in the case of P.T. Manuel & Sons [2021 (3) TMI 435 - KERALA HIGH COURT] has held that the power of rectification is not akin to that an appeal or even a review and that merely because there is wrong or erroneous order or wrong appreciation of facts the same cannot be grounds for rectification though they could be grounds for appeal.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Telecom Ltd. [2021 (12) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT] has held that while considering the application u/s. 254(2), Tribunal is not required to revisit its earlier order and to go into detail on merits. The power u/s. 254(2) are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record. It has further held that if the order passed by the Tribunal was erroneous on merits, in that case the remedy available to the assessee was to prefer an appeal before the High Court.
Since the assessee has failed to point out any mistake apparent from record as contemplated u/s. 254(2) of the Act, we are not inclined to recall the order and thus the miscellaneous application of the assessee dismissed.
............
|
