254 (Gujarat) 7. Banswara Syntex Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Chittorgarh

108 ITD 48Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#18659 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 154Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154(3)Section 2(24)Section 246ASection 250

Judgments citing 254 (Gujarat) 7. Banswara Syntex Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Chittorgarh

Osaka Alloys & Steel Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, Jld, Jalandhar

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

ITA 60/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 154oSection 2(24)Section 250Section 250oSection 80I

…r of Income Tax-1 v. M/s Setco Automotive Ltd [2024] (3) TMI 829. 6. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Steco Automotive Ltd. [2024] 161 taxmann.com 254 (Gujarat) 7. Banswara Syntex Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Chittorgarh [2017] 108 ITD 48 (Jodh). 8. Maccaferri Environmental Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Mumbai [2019] 103 taxmann.com 154 (Mumbai Trib.) 8 I.T.A. No. 60/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 9. ITAT Ahmedabad Setco Automotive Ltd. v. ACIT Panchamahal Circle Godhra [2023] (3) TMI 612. 16. He further submitted that without prejudice, subsidy was in…

Om Infra Limited, Jaipur Rajasthan vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

ITA 811/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 80Section 801C(2)(b)Section 80I

…and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there can conceivably be two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not mistake apparent from the record [Banswara Syntex Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2007) 108 ITD 48, 63-64 Jodh) 109 TTJ 274]. A decision on a debatable point of law is not mistake apparent from record.-The power of rectification under section 154 could be exercised only if there is a mistake apparent from the record of the assessment of the assessee. In other words, in order to at tract the power to rectify under section 154, it is not suffici…

Auto Finance Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 12(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 259/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.259/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Auto Finance Enterprises Acit-Circle 12(3) 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम/ 41, Nariman Bhavan, 221, Nariman Point, M. K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafa-2325-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri GovindFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore - Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 45(2)Section 74(1)Section 80

…, it is amply clear that what was claimed, was allowed as per law. The provisions are crystal clear. The AO cannot travel beyond law. The petition does not deserve to succeed. In regard to scope of section-154, the following is relied upon: 1.Banswara Syntex (108 ITD 48)(Jodh.): a mistake apparent is which is manifest, plain or obvious. Apparent is what is ex-facie incapable of argument or debate. 2.Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange (305 ITR 227)(SC): 2.3 The issue is definitely debatable. Facts noted by AO on para.5(supra) are correct, as conceded. 3. Under the circumstances AO has rightly not given her consent in…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2286/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 154

…other set of cases where non-compete fee has been held to be revenue expenditure. This of course results in making the issue debatable. The Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Banswara Syntex Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported as 108 ITD 48 has held that a decision on debatable point of law is not mistake apparent from record. 11. The powers conferred u/s. 154 on the Assessing Officer are limited only to rectify the patent mistakes. The Assessing Officer cannot use the canon of section 154 to review its decisions. In the instant case the Assessing Officer has exercised his power u/s…