Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Short Notes

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (7) TMI 362

le jurisdictional High Court and that of a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal, which were specifically relied upon by the counsel for the assessee during the course of the hearing of the appeal, therein constitutes a mistake apparent from record, which renders the order passed while disposing off the appeal in context of the issue under consideration amenable for rectification under sub-section (2) of Sec. 254. Accordingly, in terms of our aforesaid observations, the order passed by the Tribunal is recalled for the limited purpose of re-adjudicating the “Ground of appeal No. 3” after considering the aforesaid two judicial pronouncements viz. (i) The CIT Vs. M/s Bajaj India Ltd. [2009 (4) TMI 931 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] ;and (ii) Gul .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

lizers Ltd. (2019) 221 CTR (Del) 501; and (iv) Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. Vs. JCIT (2012) 349 ITR 58 (Mad); and (v) DCIT (Assessment) Vs. Farmson Pharmaceuticals Guj. Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 394 (Guj). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the copies of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements formed part of the assessee paper book (for short APB ) at Page No. 241-271. It was further submitted by the ld. A.R, that in the course of the hearing of the appeal specific reliance was placed upon two of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements viz. (i) The CIT Vs. M/s Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. (ITA No. 198 of 2009, dated 15.04.2009) (Bom); and (ii) Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd Vs. ACIT (2008) 111 ITD 124 (Hyd). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the failur .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

of the issue under consideration amenable for rectification under sub-section (2) of Sec. 254 of the Act. Accordingly, we recall the order for the limited purpose of re-adjudicating the Ground of appeal No. 3 that was raised by the assessee before us, as under: 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not granting deduction of an amount of ₹ 111,810,595/- in respect of prior period adjustments (net) while computing the book profits under Sec.115JB of the Act. 5. As regards the claim of the ld. A.R that reliance was also placed on the aforementioned remaining judicial pronouncements viz. (i) CIT Vs. Khaitan Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. (2019) 221 CTR (Del) 501; (i .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||