Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (8) TMI 513 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2015 (8) TMI 513 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - TMI - Rectification of mistake - Whether claim for deduction under Section 35D allowed in respect of expenses incurred in connection with private placement of equity shares is amenable to rectification by the Assessing Officer under Section 154? - Whether Section 154(1A) of the Act is no bar to rectification by the Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Act? - Held that:- This very issue was agitated by the revenue at the hearing of the appeal. In fact, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

debatable. Therefore outside the scope of rectification.

A review is an exception to the general rule that once a Court passes an order it becomes functus officio. The review is generally permissible when new and important evidence not available when the matter was first heard or in case there is some glaring error/mistake apparent on the face of the record. In this case, it is neither. In fact almost one hour was taken in an attempt to show us that it was an error apparent on record .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the case they came to the Court in respect of the second issue.

The approach of the revenue in these review petitions is not understood. First, the appeal was originally argued by some other advocate and for the review petition the revenue decided to engage Mr.Chhotaray. Thereafter when the review petition was being argued for undue time, we pointed out that this is a review and rearguing the appeal is not permissible. The counsel insisted on making submissions for further 45 minutes .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e review petitions are directed against the common order dated 15 June 2012 passed by this Court in respect of two appeals filed by the revenue. Both the appeals were filed against the common order dated 21 May 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in respect of Assessment Year 2000-01 and 2001-02. 2. The basic question which arose for consideration before this Court in the two appeals filed by the revenue was: whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

: - (a) The order dated 15 June 2012 holds that deduction under Section 35D(2))(c)(iv) of the Act in the present facts is a matter of opinion depending upon the notice of issue and even otherwise debatable, thus outside the scope of Section 154 of the Act. This according to him is an error apparent on record as the expenditure was incurred for private placement of shares and not for public issue. Therefore this Court ought to have held that rectification under Section 154 of the Act by the Asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Assessing Officer under Section 154 of the Act. 4. So far as the first issue is concerned, we find that this very issue was agitated by the revenue at the hearing of the appeal. In fact, the revenue's submission that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of Section 35D(2)(c)(iv) of the Act on the ground that the same is available only where expenditure is incurred in connection with public issue and this is a private placement is recorded in paragraph No.3 of the order dated 15 June .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

person declaring the petition is as under : Since deduction under Section 35D is available only with respect to share issue expenses incurred in connection with public issue of shares. Thereafter remedial action under Section 263 was proposed by Commissioner of Income Tax. After considering the assessee's contention, the Commissioner of Income Tax dropped the proposed proceedings under Section 263 of the Act dated 29.3.2005........ Thereafter the assessment was reopened under Section 147 of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hallenging the order dated 21 May 2010. 7. In view of the above, we find that this application made by the revenue is completely misconceived. A review is an exception to the general rule that once a Court passes an order it becomes functus officio. The review is generally permissible when new and important evidence not available when the matter was first heard or in case there is some glaring error/mistake apparent on the face of the record. In this case, it is neither. In fact almost one hour .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

amined the case of the revenue in its memo of appeal which incidentally is the case they came to the Court in respect of the second issue. So far as the first issue is concerned, the grievance now raised in the review petition was a subject matter of consideration on which we took a view in order dated 15 June 2012. If according to the revenue it is not a correct view/opinion, then the remedy is an appeal and not review. 8. In fact, the approach of the revenue in these review petitions is not un .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version