|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 2006 Records
-
2018 (4) TMI 1709
TP Adjustment - MAM selection - As submitted that the assessee company renders support services and the findings of the TPO and DRP with respect to its controlling critical functions in regard to the merchandising, fabric sourcing, product integrity, quality assurance etc. meant that there was significant differences in the international transactions as opposed to those by the assessee in the case of Li and Fung India Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (1) TMI 501 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the opinion that on this aspect question of law does not arise. The findings of the ITAT with respect to the functional similarity, indeed identity, between the assessee in the case of Li and Fung India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the assessee in the present case, is clear. The assessee, like in the case of Li and Fung India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), did not assume any risk and was dependent entirely for reimbursement of its expenses by the associated enterprises (‘AEs’) and was entitled to the annual and identical markup of 5% over the annual expenditure.
Having regard to these facts, the Court is of the opinion that the application of the rule in Li and Fung India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was appropriate and therefore this question of law does not arise.
Nature of expenses - revenue or capital expenditure - HELD THAT:- Appeal admitted on:-
“(1) Whether the ITAT erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,75,16,800/- made by the Assessing officer on account of Rent Expenses ignoring the fact that the same is capital expenditure in connection with business activities?”
-
2018 (4) TMI 1708
Recall of order/restoration of appeal - contention of appellant is that the appellant assessee never received the order in the ROM matter - HELD THAT:- As the matter relates to facts which are bone of the records of the Registry of this Tribunal, we direct the Assistant Registrar to scrutinize the records and submit the factual reports about the contentions mentioned in the Miscellaneous Application and noticed hereinabove on or before the next date fixed in the matter.
Copy be issued dasti.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1707
Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(23G) in respect of interest income earned by bank - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case [2013 (8) TMI 1107 - ITAT MUMBAI] there is no denial by the revenue authorities on the fact that the business of the assessee was of undivisible nature and assessee being the creation of the Parliament, is not a banking company and certainly not a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The department cannot take the view of proposing the cost of interest to be separately induced on the assessee, as the entire costs have already got embedded in the costs/total expenses. In any case, circular no. 780 dated 07.10.1999, as relied upon by the department cannot be made applicable on the assessee, as the assessee is a public financial institution and not a bank.
Further, on going through with the details, as filed, the assessee has substantial own funds, which are employed by it in bonds/securities, and is thus covered by the case of CIT vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. [2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and other case, as cited and placed/mentioned in the synopsis.
The assessee having the business of lending, was correct in claiming the deduction, which was claimed at net figures because, the interest has got embedded in the specific costs.
Whether exemption of interest under section 10(23G) of the Act should be granted after deducting actual interest cost instead of notional interest cost ? - HELD THAT:- As decided in assessee's own case [2013 (8) TMI 1107 - ITAT MUMBAI] and HDFC BANK LTD. [2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] we hold that deduction for the interest cost incurred was to be taken only in relation to earmarked borrowings utilized by the assessee for the purpose of granting loans to the enterprises, interest income whereof is exempt u/s 10(23G) of the Act for the purpose of computing net interest income eligible for deduction u/s 10(23G) of the Act.
Exemption under section 10(34) of the Act is to be granted at dividend income without deducting notional interest cost and estimated managerial expenses - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2015 (11) TMI 1305 - ITAT MUMBAI] it is seen by us that assessee’s own funds exceed the investment made and therefore no disallowance could have been made by the assessing officer in the given facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, respectfully following judgments of Hon’ble Tribunal in assessee’s own case and jurisdictional High Court, we decide these grounds in favour of the assessee
Disallowance of interest expenses on foreign currency loan under section 14A read with section 8D - HELD THAT:- We do not agree with the contention of the appellant that borrowings in Indian currency which are for a short period like under CBLO etc. should also be excluded simply because they are short-term borrowings which cannot be invested in long term investments. There is no bar to the appellant to invest money borrowed in the short term in assets which yield exempt income. In view of the above, the A.O. is directed to re-compute the disallowance u/s14A read with Rule 8D after excluding interest paid on foreign currency borrowings which are utilized for foreign currency lending abroad or out of India out of total interest paid by the appellant
Depreciation u/s. 32 - sanctity in reducing the WDV of the assets by notional depreciation in the years in which the appellant was not assessable to income-tax - HELD THAT:- The assessee placed reliance on Tribunal’s order for AY 2005-06 [2015 (11) TMI 1305 - ITAT MUMBAI] , wherein the Tribunal has principally decided the issue that reducing the amount of WDV on notional basis for the amount of depreciation, which was neither claimed nor actually allowed, should not have been deducted from the original cost of the asset. Taking a consistent stand and respectfully following the Tribunal’s order, we dismiss this issue of Revenue’s appeal.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1706
Validity of reassessment order - time limitation - specific case of the petitioner is that since the proceedings of re- assessment against the petitioner had been initiated and signed by the assessing officer on July 18, 2001 and dispatched on July 20, 2001 - HELD THAT:- As per the sub-rule (3) of rule 28 inserted with effect from July 21, 2001, the limitation for disposal of the case where the notices had been issued after the coming into force of the said sub-rule (3), would be two years, but in case the proceeding had been initiated prior to the coming into force of the said sub-rule (3), which was on July 21, 2001, the period of limitation would be one year.
Admitted case of the parties is that notices for re-assessment under sub- section (8) of section 12 of the Act were signed by the assessing officer on July 18, 2001 and dispatched on July 20, 2001. Hence, the same would clearly be prior to the coming into force of sub-rule (3) of rule 28 of the Rules, as by issuance of notification dated July 18, 2001 by the assessing officer, the reassessment proceedings had been initiated and thus would be considered as cases pending prior to the insertion of sub-rule (3), which was on July 21, 2001.
The assessment orders could have been passed only within one year from the date of the commencement of Orissa Sales Tax (Amendment) Rules, 2001, which came into force on July 21, 2001. In the present cases, the assessment orders having been passed beyond the period of limitation, the said orders dated June 30, 2003, which were passed beyond the period of one year, would thus be without jurisdiction, and liable to be quashed.
The assessment orders dated June 30, 2003 for the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998- 99 passed by the assessing officer are thus quashed - Petition allowed.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1705
Striking off the name of the Appellant Company in the Register of Members - due to non-compliance of the provisions of Companies Act,2013 with respect to filing of annual returns and financial statements for the last two years, the name of the company was struck off - HELD THAT:- During the period of striking off the name of the Company in June, 2017 there is no record to show the business in operations - there are no convincing documents on record to establish that the Company was doing business or in actual operation when its name was struck from the Register of the Registrar of Companies. Therefore it could be said that the Company was non-operational at the relevant period of striking off its name in June, 2017.
There is no just reason to restore the Company's name on Register of Registrar of Companies - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1704
Refund of Service Tax - input services utilized for export of readymade garments - HELD THAT:- On the first ground objection as to jurisdiction have to be taken in the course of the first instance, which was not taken by Revenue before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly, the said ground is dismissed.
The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have only deciding the issue in principle by giving the directions to the respondent/assessee – “to produce the payment proof in respect of all the concerned invoices to the Adjudicating Authority” thus, directions having been given to the respondent/assessee to appear before the Adjudicating Authority and certified certificate regarding receipt of export proceedings in support of their refund claim of export and then they are eligible for disbursement of refund of Service Tax. Thus, the second ground of appeal is not tenable.
The respondent/assessee is directed to appear before the Adjudicating Authority in terms of the directions of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and produced the relevant proof of realization of export proceedings in support of their refund claim - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1703
Restoration of name of the Petitioner Company in the Register of Companies - Section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The company has no revenue from operation. This reflects that, the company is not doing any business and they are in processing for allotment of land from KIADB, but the reasons known that, the matter is still under correspondence for taking possession of the land and as far as KIADB is concerned vide their letter dated 16th December 2016, it is stated that, if the possession of land is not taken within 30 days from the date of payment of the premium shall result in cancellation of allotment and of the amount paid towards premium and EMD shall stand forfeited. The amount which has been paid by the company as reflected in their letter dated 23rd November 2016 is not appeared in their Balance sheet as on 31/03/2017.
There is no revenue from operations since incorporation i.e., from August 2010 to 2017. There are no grounds to order for restoration of the name of the Petitioner Company as no fixed or other substantial assets are available. No materials from the side of Petitioner Company to establish that, it was an ongoing concern at the time when its name was struck off - the name of the company cannot be restored and the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, Bangalore had rightly removed the name of the company from the register of companies.
Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1702
Jurisdiction for filing of the suit - Whether Madhya Pradesh had jurisdiction for filing of the suit or not? - HELD THAT:- The agreement between the parties has taken place at Bengaluru and also Head Office of the plaintiff situated at Bengaluru - The Court committed an error by allowing the application for retuning the plaint. No doubt,agreement between the parties had taken place at Bengaluru and Head Office of the plaintiff is at Bengaluru but the cause of action has arisen at Bharwani District of Madhya Pradesh. When that is the case, as per Section 20 of CPC, plaintiff has got cause to file suit either at Bengaluru or where the cause of action has arisen.
The case of the appellant is to be considered for the purpose of filing a suit, it is the State in which the appellant carries on business. It is to be taken into account, though the appellant states that he has got subordinate office at Bhopal at Madhya Pradesh that itself is sufficient for the purrpose of jurisdiction in Madhya Pradesh - The submission of the appellant that cause of action has arisen in Bharwani District, where the appellant having subordinate office at Bhopal, but principal office at Bengaluru is not a ground to file a suit in Bengaluru.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1701
Imposition of penalty u/s 112 of Customs Act, 1962 and section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 - smuggling of gold - contravention of the prohibition on import of gold through the courier mode - HELD THAT:- It is ironical that a proceeding for imposition of penalties under section 112 and section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 has travelled beyond the ingredients mandating such penalties to render a finding on adherence to obligations and requirements under Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 which, contrary to a validation in accord with the prescriptions of section 112 and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962, are entirely outside the jurisdiction of the original authority and the first appellate authority. Reliance on those provisions and the rendering of a finding that would, in the hands of the appropriate jurisdiction authority, lead to penal action under the Regulations supra vitiates the invoking of the penal provisions under Customs Act, 1962.
Indeed, note cannot but be taken of the categorical finding by the original authority that the transgression of M/s Poonam Courier Pvt Ltd was a manifestation of folly rather than deliberate connivance with the smuggling. Note is also taken of the absence of evidence that would justify the finding of deliberate involvement on the part of the various noticees - an integral requirement for invoking of section 112 and section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. Admittedly, the statements are bereft of such indictment.
Considering the lack of any evidence other than statements that that are also not inculpatory, the penalties under section 112 and section 114AA are not sustainable - penalties do not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1700
Conviction of offence punishable under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 - seizure of Narcotics - mandatory provision of Section 42(1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act - HELD THAT:- The appellant was obviously a carrier of the contraband. The small quantity which is stipulated under the Act is 5 gms. While the commercial quantity is 250 gms. The appellant was found to be in possession of 609.6 gm which is obviously more than the commercial quantity. Thus it could be safely concluded that the appellant has committed an offence which is punishable under Section 21-C of the NDPS Act. However, considering the actual amount of heroin seized from the possession of the accused which is more than the commercial quantity of 250 gms.
The aim and object of the 1985 Act, is to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and to deter the illicit traffic in the said drugs and substances.
In the present case the narcotic drugs which was found in possession of the appellant as per the analysis report is 609.6 gms, is much higher than the commercial quantity. Thus we find that the ends of justice will be sub-served if we reduce the sentence of the accused appellant to 16 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of ₹ 2 lakhs and in default of payment of such fine the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months more.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1699
Rectification u/s 254 - Condonation of delay denied - delay of 145 day - Petition states that Tribunal did not properly considered the delay condonation petition and made no mention about the treatment taken by the assessee in an Ayurvedhic dispensary at Kerala - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal did not condone the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal finding the reasons mentioned to be inadequate. The Tribunal has reproduced the affidavit filed by the assessee in full at para 3 of its order. Said affidavit speaks about the treatment undertaken by the assessee at Kottakkal, Kerala. Having reproduced the affidavit in the order itself, I cannot say that the treatment taken by the assessee at Kottakkal, Kerala was not in mind of this Tribunal while deciding not to condone the delay.
Thus in the guise of a Miscellaneous Petition assessee is only seeking a review of the order of this Tribunal. This Tribunal has no power for review u/s.254(2) of the Act. Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1698
Addition on account of unreconciled receipts as per Annual Information Report - Income received more than what is declared - HELD THAT:- The letter written to the Assessing Officer clearly states that the assessee requested the Assessing Officer to provide necessary information to reconcile the balance entries. However, in spite of request AO could not provide any information and moreover he made addition stating that the assessee agreed for the same. Assessing Officer made addition solely on the basis of AIR information and we see no other information is brought on record by the Assessing Officer to show that the assessee had in fact received this income from the said parties. We also see that the assessee reconciled 95% of the transactions leaving only 4.76% of the transactions unreconciled due to lack of data. See .YAHOO INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS YAHOO WEB SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.) , [2016 (1) TMI 1129 - ITAT MUMBAI]
No valid reason for the Assessing Officer to make addition towards unreconciled income as the addition was solely based on AIR information and without making proper enquiries, without submitting the information as requested by the assessee. In the circumstances, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1697
Amount of Compensation - acquisition of Dry lands - Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - HELD THAT:- In the case at hand, it is a matter of record that the said land is fit for using the same for house sites and situated adjacent to the National highway and is also near to the busy area with various facilities. During the course of proceeding, various sale deeds of adjacent lands were brought to our knowledge. It is also undisputed fact that the entire land belonging to the Appellant herein was not acquired but a portion of it alone had been acquired. It is the grievance of the Appellant that the acquisition of land to the extent of 4.63 acres out of total holding of 6.11 acres, rendering the balance land to be an uneconomical holding for the purpose of continuing agriculture operations. There is no doubt that the land owners have to suffer when their lands acquired under the LA Act. Hence, they must be compensated properly in lieu of their lands to do proper justice.
There is no doubt that the lands which are situated adjacent to the main road will fetch good market value than the lands which are situated beyond the road. Though learned single Judge of the High Court was of the opinion that there was no basis of granting ₹ 2,500/- per cent for the suit lands, we are of the considered opinion that on the basis of the alleged sale deeds which were done in the proximity within a very short time amply prove its value in relation to the adjoining lands. Learned subordinate Judge was right in holding the potential value of the suit lands.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1696
Disallowance u/s.14A - HELD THAT:- In view of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] no disallowance can be made u/s.14A where no expenditure had been incurred in relation to exempt income.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1695
Addition of unexplained fixed deposit - cheque received on sale of the property - HELD THAT:- There can be no two opinion that the sum credited in assessee’s bank account on 20.02.2014 was the cheque received on sale of the property. Irrespective of the fact whether assessee, as a power of attorney holder, was entitled to such sum, it cannot be controverted that the fixed deposit made by the assessee on 17.03.2014, thus stood explained.
Fixed deposit was placed by the assessee from the very same bank account through a transfer debit. It might be true that the power of attorney was registered on 03.12.2012 and assessee had no good source to explain the payment of ₹ 45,00,000/- to Ms.S. Ishwariah.Source of such payment would be relevant only for previous year ending 31.03.2013 viz, assessment year 2013-2014. As far as assessment year 2014-15 is concerned, assessee had well explained source for making fixed deposit of ₹ 35,00,000/-. The addition stands deleted. Grounds 2 & 3 are allowed.
Unexplained cash credit - HELD THAT:- Bank account Shri. Bhuma Ramakrishna Reddy with ICICI was not an NRI account. Assessee had failed to file any confirmation from Shri. Bhuma Ramakrishna Reddy. Assessee also could not give any details on the whereabouts of Shri. Bhuma Ramakrishna Reddy. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the addition was rightly made by the ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). - Decided against assessee.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1694
Claim of deduction u/s 80IC - rejecting the claim of deduction @ 100% of eligible profits - entitlement to the assessee to said deduction as it was the 9th year of production - substantial expansion in 2010-11 financial year would not entitle the assessee to said deduction as it was the 9th year of production - HELD THAT:- Assessee's claim of deduction u/s 80IC to the extent of 100% of eligible profits from the manufacturing activity was limited to 25% by the AO and the CIT(A) relying upon the decision in the case of Hycron Electronics V ITO [2015 (6) TMI 725 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] confirmed the order the tax authorities taking into consideration the fact that the assessee started its business activity in July,2005 and the initial assessment year for claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act was 2006-07 assessment year rejecting the claim of deduction @ 100% of eligible profits on the ground that substantial expansion in 2010-11 financial year would not entitle the assessee to said deduction as it was the 9th year of production.
Case is remitted back to the file of the AO with the direction to give necessary relief in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in terms of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1693
Rectification u/s 254 - mistake apparent from record - HELD THAT:- In DR. S. PANNEERSELVAM VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER [2009 (10) TMI 113 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that the relief which is being sought by the assessee by way of impugned rectification application is not legally tenable for the reason that the Tribunal has no power to adjudicate upon subsequent application filed u/s 254(2). Here, it may be the case of the assessee that earlier order against which impugned rectification application is filed is also an order passed on subsequent application, then the only course permissible to the assessee is to file an appeal against that order and not to approach the Tribunal to contend that the said order was an invalid order, therefore it should be recalled.
As per above paras reproduced from this order of Special Bench of Tribunal, it is seen that the Tribunal has held that M.P. against M.P. is not maintainable and while holding so, the Tribunal has followed various judgments of various Hon’ble High Courts such as Hon’ble Orissa High Court, Hon’ble Delhi High Court, Hon’ble Kerala High Court and Hon’ble Madras High Court. In the present case, this is not in dispute that the present M.P. filed by the revenue is regarding alleged mistakes in the Tribunal order passed u/s. 254(2) . Hence we hold that the present M.P. of revenue is not maintainable and the same is dismissed accordingly.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1692
Restoration of name of the company in the register of companies maintained by the Registrar of the Companies - section 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 - HELD THAT:- None of the documents produced enables to come to a conclusion that the appellant company is a going concern as alleged or that upon restoration it would start business in the field of construction in the leasehold property allegedly allotted to it.
From the data available it is understood that they have committed breach of terms of allotment and committed default in non filing of statutory returns which they are duty bound to submit with the office of the ROC under the companies Act.2013 - it can be concluded that the appellant company is a sham company ever engaged in any business from the time of inception or it was in operation as alleged.
There is no valid reason for restoring a company of this nature - appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1691
Transfer pricing adjustment - Interest on loan to Sun Pharma Global Inc (AE) at London Inter Bank Offer Rate (LIBOR) Plus 2% Rate - Interest on short term advances - Corporate Guarantee fees to banks on behalf of AEs at London Inter Bank Offer Rate (LIBOR) - weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) - HELD THAT:- Appeal admitted on question 1 to 5 relating to TP adjustment for interest, corporate Guarantee fees & weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB)
Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D - disallowance of expenses incurred by the assessee for and on behalf of M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, partnership firm of which he is a partner, is a subject matter of dispute at the hands of the Revenue - assessee contends that such expenditure is in the nature of his business expenditure and therefore, allowable under section 37 - HELD THAT:- Tribunal did not accept the Revenue's contention that section 37 itself was not applicable and the entire expenditure should have been disallowed. This view of the Tribunal, the Revenue has challenged in corresponding appeal [2018 (4) TMI 1686 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. However, in the present appeal, the question is confined to the disallowance under section 14A of the Act which arises out of the Tribunal's decision in assessee's appeal and which, as noted above, was not allowed by the Tribunal. Therefore, this question is not entertained in the present Tax Appeal making it clear that the corresponding question of applicability or otherwise of section 37 of the Act raised by the Revenue in Tax Appeal would be debated independently.
Foreign Exchange Fluctuation Gain - character of income - cancellation/renewal of forward contracts made by the assessee to protect the risk of investments in its subsidiary companies as capital receipts - HELD THAT:- In case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment) vs. Garden Silk Mills Ltd.. [2009 (2) TMI 95 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] the Court was concerned with facts where the assessee had received a gain on cancellation of forward foreign exchange contract and had treated such surplus as not allowable to tax. The Tribunal had added that it was a capital receipt not allowable to capital gains tax as cancellation of such a contract did not involve any transfer or assignment of any asset within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act. The question of law framed at the instance of the Revenue in appeal before the High Court was “Is profit on cancellation of forward exchange contract, a capital receipt or a revenue receipt?”. This Court answered the question against the Revenue it cannot be stated that the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal have committed any error in law in holding: that the surplus received by the assessee company upon cancellation of forward foreign exchange contract will partake character of a capital receipt.
-
2018 (4) TMI 1690
Issues involved:
1. Review of Order Mistake (ROM) filed by the Department against the Final Order
2. Permissibility of appeal review
3. Applicability of legal precedents
Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a Review of Order Mistake (ROM) filed by the Department against a Final Order. The presiding judge noted that there was an alleged mistake in the order, but after hearing arguments from both parties, it was concluded that there was no apparent mistake in the impugned order. The judge emphasized that it is not necessary to discuss every argument presented by the appellant, and only the cumulative effect needs to be considered, citing the case of CIT vs Karam C. Thappar.
2. The judgment delves into the permissibility of appeal review, highlighting that in the case of ROM, a review of the appeal is not permissible. This stance is supported by legal precedents such as Prajatantra Prachar Samity vs CIT, CIT vs McDowell & Co Ltd., M/s Bhagat Construction Store vs CIT, and CIT Vs Malwa Texturising (P) Ltd. The judgment concludes that based on the above reasoning, there is no merit in the ROM, which is subsequently dismissed.
3. The judgment extensively references legal precedents to support the decision regarding the permissibility of appeal review in the context of ROM. By citing specific cases such as Prajatantra Prachar Samity vs CIT, CIT vs McDowell & Co Ltd., M/s Bhagat Construction Store vs CIT, and CIT Vs Malwa Texturising (P) Ltd., the judgment establishes a strong legal foundation for dismissing the ROM. The application of these legal precedents showcases a thorough analysis of relevant case law to arrive at a well-founded decision.
In conclusion, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the Review of Order Mistake (ROM) and the permissibility of appeal review, supported by a robust reference to legal precedents. The decision to dismiss the ROM is based on a comprehensive consideration of the facts of the case and the legal principles established in the cited cases, ensuring a well-reasoned and legally sound outcome.
............
|
9911796707
