9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of s. 254(2) of the IT Act in the Tribunals order on ITA No. 849(Cal) of 1981, dt. 24th September, 1982, which could be rectified by the Tribunal by its subsequent order ?" 2. The assessment year involved is 1977-78. 3. In this case the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder this Chapter) shall alone be deemed to be the amount of income of that nature which is derived or received by the assessee and which is included in his gross total income". In view of this new provision, we are of the opinion that the cases relied on by the assessees counsel do not help the assessee and the deduction under s. 80T is to be allowed in the amount of capital gain which is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 981, without having any retrospective effect. On the other hand, we see that the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. V. Venkatachalam [1979] 120 ITR 688 (Mad) is a direct authority on the point at issue wherein it has been held that relief under s. 80T will have to be worked out in the gross amount of capital gain. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Madras Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not a case where the Tribunal has exercised the power by rectifying the mistake apparent on the face of the record. The power under s. 254(2) of the Act is only for the purpose of rectifying the mistake and as such, the Tribunal was wrong by invoking s. 254(2) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Accordingly, this question of law is answered in the negative and in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
