ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.

305 ITR 227Supreme Court of India2008#151 most cited

What is ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. authority for?

Non-consideration of a decision by a jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. However, non-consideration of a non-jurisdictional High Court decision does not typically amount to such a mistake.

470

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. · Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange · mistake apparent from record · section 154 · section 254(2) · rectification of mistake · non-consideration jurisdictional High Court · non-consideration Supreme Court · judicial precedent oversight · error on record · 305 ITR 227

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.

M/S Wires & Fabriks (Sa) Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 3(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 863/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.863/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Wires & Fabricks (Sa) Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), Kolkata. 7, Chittaranjan Avenue, Laha Paint House, Kolkata – 700072. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacw2586L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rip Das, Fca Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-1, Kolkata Dated 12.02.2019 Passed In Case No.10591/Cit(A)-1/ Kol/Circle-3(1)/2016-17 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Canvassed In The Instant Appeal Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Declining 115Jaa Mat Credit As Prayed For In Section 154 Rectification Proceedings. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion On Affirming The Assessing Officer’S Action To This Effect Reads As Under: “8. Grounds Of Appeal No. 2 & 3 Are Being Considered In A Consolidated Manner. It Was The Plea Of The Assessee That The A.O. Should Have Considered The Schedule Matc Of Itr6

For Appellant: Shri Rip Das, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 155JSection 2(43)Section 244A

…d CIT(A)." 11. In any case, assuming that the assessee’s position is correct, an order u/s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could not have been issued based on the argument of the assessee as the Apex Court in A.C.I.T. vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. 173 Taxmann 322 (SC). A 154 order cannot be made on a debatable issue.” 3. The above detailed discussion makes it clear that the CIT(A) has gone by this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s decision in Richa Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that the amount of surcharge and education cess cannot be included in computing MAT credit u/s 115JAA of the Act. Learned Depa…

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

…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 regard to claimed relief. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative for assessee [AR], while assailing the stand of lower a…