Ziauddin A. Siddique v. Jt. CIT

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Appeal (Tribunal)--Rectification under section 254(2)One of the possible views taken by the Tribunal --Held: The Tribunal had, vide its order, upheld the assessments under section 153A. There were two views on the purview of assessment under section 153A. Even considering that two points of view were possible on the subject, the Tribunal was bound to follow that view which appealed its conscience. The same could be challenged under review proceedings. Therefore, miscellaneous application filed by assessee challenging order of Tribunal was dismissed.

Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 254(2)

Relied:Kanel Oil & Export Inds. Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (2009) 121 ITD 596 (Ahd.) (TM), CIT v. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. (1993) 203 ITR 497 (Bom) and Corrossion Roadlines v. Dy. CIT (2005) 92 ITD 181 (Pune)(TM)

REFERRED : Asst. CIT v. Pratibha Industries Ltd. (2013) 141 ITD 151 (Mum), All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2012) 137 ITD 287 (Mum) (SB) CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (2013) 352 ITR 493 (Del), Ahura Holdings v. Dy. CIT (2012) 346 ITR 106 (AP) & Asst. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC)

FAVOUR : Against the assessee

A.Y. : 2002-03 to 2004-05

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Appeal (Tribunal)--Rectification under section 254(2)Decision on matter not subject-matter of appeal--Held: Since the Tribunal had decided a matter, which was not before it or arising out of a matter before it, there had clearly been a mistake apparent from record in its order and accordingly, miscellaneous application filed by assessee was allowed.

Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 254(2)

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour

A.Y. : 2005-06

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Appeal (Tribunal)--Rectification under section 254(2)One of the possible views taken by the Tribunal --Held: The Tribunal had, vide its order, upheld the assessments under section 153A. There were two views on the purview of assessment under section 153A. Even considering that two points of view were possible on the subject, the Tribunal was bound to follow that view which appealed its conscience. The same could be challenged under review proceedings. Therefore, miscellaneous application filed by assessee challenging order of Tribunal was dismissed.

Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 254(2)

Relied:Kanel Oil & Export Inds. Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (2009) 121 ITD 596 (Ahd.) (TM), CIT v. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. (1993) 203 ITR 497 (Bom) and Corrossion Roadlines v. Dy. CIT (2005) 92 ITD 181 (Pune)(TM)

REFERRED : Asst. CIT v. Pratibha Industries Ltd. (2013) 141 ITD 151 (Mum), All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2012) 137 ITD 287 (Mum) (SB) CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia (2013) 352 ITR 493 (Del), Ahura Holdings v. Dy. CIT (2012) 346 ITR 106 (AP) & Asst. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC)

FAVOUR : Against the assessee

A.Y. : 2002-03 to 2004-05

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

--Appeal (Tribunal)--Rectification under section 254(2)Decision on matter not subject-matter of appeal--Held: Since the Tribunal had decided a matter, which was not before it or arising out of a matter before it, there had clearly been a mistake apparent from record in its order and accordingly, miscellaneous application filed by assessee was allowed.

Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 254(2)

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour

A.Y. : 2005-06

IN THE ITAT, G BENCH, MUMBAI

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT