(1) Asian Techs Ltd. v. CIT

243 ITR 262High Court2000#23912 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing (1) Asian Techs Ltd. v. CIT

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd., Trichur

ITA/485/2009HC Kerala14 Jul 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 260ASection 36(1)(viia)

…main considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal found that there was no mistake apparent from the record so as to invoke section 154 of the Act. 10. The learned counsel has invited our attention to the judgment in Asian Techs Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 262 (Ker); [2000] KHC 846 and con tended that the mistake apparent from record is not a clerical or arithmet ical error alone that comes within its purview but it also comprehends errors which, after judicious probe into the record from which it is sup posed to emanate are discerned. But, after considering the factual circumstances in the s…

Metal Rolling Works Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-47, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1857/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 154Section 2(47)(v)Section 269U

…nd two views are possible thereon, the same cannot be considered as “apparent mistake” which can be rectified in the proceedings initiated u/s 154 of the Act. In this regard, the Ld A.R placed reliance on the following case laws:- (1) Asian Techs Ltd. v. CIT [243 ITR 262, 266-267 (Ker)] “In order to bring an application under section 154, the mistake must be 'apparent' from the record 'Apparent' means 'open to view, visible, evident, appears, appearing as real and true, conspicuous, manifest, obvious, seeming Section 154 does not enable an order to be reversed by revision or by review, but permits only some erro…

Geeta Lalit Suneja, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 2759/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Geeta Lalit Suneja, Income Tax Officer-20(1)(2) 502, Harsha-Ii, Raheja Mumbai बनाम/ Complex, Seven Bunglow, Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400061 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aeops1522B

Section 143(1)Section 154

…r the term “a mistake apparent from record” and the ld. Assessing Officer did not consider the application of the assessee filed u/s 154 of the Act on 01/05/2012, which was rejected by him. Reliance was placed upon the decision in the case of Asian Techs Ltd. 243 ITR 262 (Kerala) and Laskhmi Prasad Lakhar 74 taxman 112 (Guwahati). In view of the submissions of the assessee and the foregoing discussion and also the mandate of Article 265 of the Constitution of India, I am of the view that only due taxes has to be levied/collected, therefore, considering the principle of natural justice, that no person should be c…