How many judgments cite ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.?

470 judgments on BharatTax cite ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (305 ITR 227), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 154, Section 250, Section 147, Section 143(1), Section 263.

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

Also reported as

173 Taxmann 322

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 154 Section 250 Section 147 Section 143(1)Section 263 Section 142(1)Section 148

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 254(2)mistake apparent from record mistake apparent on record section 2(24)section 254 miscellaneous application section 36(1)(va)section 43b section 36(1)section 154 section 36 section 25

Judgments citing ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.

ACIT vs. International School of Social Welfare Human Resources

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed while the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 119/PAT/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Oct 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Abhi Sarkar, AdvFor Respondent: Ld. DR. Lalita Kumari, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

…of reasoning on points on which their may conceivably two opinions. There is no dispute that Tribunal has a very limited power for rectifying the mistake. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT –vs.- Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited reported in 305 ITR 227 has propounded broadly six tests for judging an order passed by ITAT, whether it suffers from an apparent mistake or not. 6. In the light of above, we have gone through the order of the Tribunal dated 20.07.2015. The Tribunal has failed to take cognizance of the factum that reopening of assessment in both the reasons is based upon the same set o…

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dlf Midtown Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appellant assessee is allowed and appeal of Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2859/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

…fore, the applicability of the non-jurisdictional High Court is never absolute, without exceptions and as a matter of course. That is the principle implicit in Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of ACIT Vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd [(2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC)] wherein Their Lordships have upheld the plea that “non-consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional Court or of the Supreme Court can be said to be a mistake apparent from the record”. The decisions of Hon’ble non-jurisdictional High Courts are thus placed at a level certainly below the Hon’ble High Court, and it’s a conscious call that is…

Dlf Midtown P. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appellant assessee is allowed and appeal of Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1963/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1166/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Sony India Private Limited, vs. DCIT, Circle 24 (1), A-18, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 044. (PAN : AABCS1571Q) DCIT, Circle 24 (1), vs. M/s. Sony India Private Limited, New Delhi. A-18, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate, New Delhi – 110 044. (PAN : AABCS1571Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 19.06.2024 Date of Order…

Sony India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1026/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Madras Gymkhana Club, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 75/CHNY/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.74 & 75/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2016-17 V. Madras Gymkhana Club, The Ito, The Island No.1, Ncw-9(2), Anna Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan: Aaatm 7562 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 154

…di/decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court/jurisdictional High Court would amount to mistake apparent on the face of the record by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., reported in 305 ITR 227 (SC), [though, in the context of the power of rectification of the Tribunal order u/s.254(2) of the Act], which we note is pari materia with that of sec.154 of the Act, which provision of law, we are concerned in the present appeals. The Ld.CIT(A) after hearing the assessee rectified his impugned order dated 20.05.2019 for AY 2016-17 by holdin…

Madras Gymkhana Club, Chennai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Chennai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 74/CHNY/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 154

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

…settled law on Section 154. Even subsequent interpretation of the law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would constitute "mistake apparent from records". • B.V.K. Seshavataram Vs. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 633 (AP)) • ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC) • Circular: No. 68 [F.No.245/17/71-A & PAC), dated 17-11-1971 6.8 In view of the above, the action of the Id. assessing officer in the rectification order is upheld and the ground no. 3 of the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 8 Om Infra Limited vs. DCIT, Central Circle-01, Jaipur 5. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved from the finding…

Panacea Boitec Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT National Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 807/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2016-17 Panacea Boitec Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, G-3/B-1 Extension, National Assessment Mohan Coop. Indl Centre, Estate, Mathura Road New Delhi. New Delhi – 110044 Pan Aaacp5335J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 6Section 6(1)Section 92BSection 92C

…ore, the applicability of the non- jurisdictional High Court is never absolute, without exceptions and as a matter of course. That is the principle implicit in Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of ACIT Vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd [(2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC)] wherein Their Lordships have upheld the plea that “non-consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional Court or of the Supreme Court can be said to be a mistake apparent from the record”. The decisions of Hon’ble non-jurisdictional High Courts are thus placed at a level certainly below the Hon’ble High Court, and it’s a conscious call that is…

Markolines Infra Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT/DCIT Circle 15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2020-

ITA 366/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Gagan Goyaland

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…evailing on the date of payment and on the said date the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd (supra) was not available, it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT v/s Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange, [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC) held that the judicial decision acts retrospectively and it is not the function of the Court to pronounce a “new rule”, but to maintain and expound the “old one”. Thus, it was held that the Judges do not make a law, they only discover or find the correct law. 25. Since, in the present case, Employees’ Contributions to PF and ESIC were found…

Abdul Azeez Poolakkodan, Kottakkal vs. ITO Ward 1, Tirur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1006/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cochin19 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Anil Kumar Dugarabdul Azeez Poolakkodan Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Poolakkodan House Tharif Bazar, Opp. Town Hall Randathani P.O. Vs. Tirur 676101 Malappuram 676510 [Pan: Acppa2490P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 10(37)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 154Section 28Section 34Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

…oubt, inasmuch a decision by the Apex Court is declaratory of the law of the land, any decision inconsistent therewith is, to that extent, liable to be regarded as mistaken and amended (refer, inter alia, Asst. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchg. Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC)). 3.3 Sections 56(2)(viii) and 57(iv) came on the statute w.e.f. 01.04.2010, i.e., AY 2010-11 onwards. The decision in Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) is for AY 1999-00. The said decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court thus has no bearing on the said provisions, invoked by the AO in bringing the impugned interest to tax. Even as observed by the Bench du…

Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, Ahmedabad vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 315/AHD/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2005-06 Vs. Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, The Income-Tax Officer, A-9, Kumud Apartment, Ward-5(2)(2), Near Stadium Five Roads, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aaaab 3885 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Deciding Appeal Ex- Parte Without Appreciating That Business Of The Appellant Has Been Closed Since Covid-19 & Therefore, In Absence Of Any Office, Notice(S) Claimed To Be Have Been Served Through Email Could Not Be Communicated To The Partners Of The Appellant. Without Prejudice To This It Is Submitted That No Notice(S) Came To Be Served On The Appellant At The Designated Email Stated In Form No. 35 For The Purpose Of Service Of Notice(S). Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv Vs. Ito Ay : 2005-06 2

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 250(6)Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MRS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2005-06 Vs. Backbone Tarmet NG JV, The Income-tax Officer, A-9, Kumud Apartment, Ward-5(2)(2), Near Stadium Five Roads, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 PAN : AAAAB 3885 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sakar Sharma, CA Reven…

Pramod Tarade, Raigad vs. CIT ( NFAC ), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 898/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.898/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Pramod Tarade, The Commissioner Of A-2, Sai Ameya Chs, Plot V Income Tax,[Nfac]. No.28, Sector-12, Kharghar, S Panvel, Raigad – 410210. Maharashtra. Pan: Aevpt9870L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Tarun G – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2021-22 Passed On 24.06.2023 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.12.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. The Order Of The Cit(A) Nfac, Dt. 24-06-2023 For The A.Y. 2021 -22 Is Contrary To Law & Facts & In The Circumstances Of Pramod Tarade [A]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

…to the assessee. In this case, there is no mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, there is no question of rectification. Meaning of Mistake Apparent from record: 6.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd 305 ITR 227 (SC)/[2008] has held as under : Quote ,“37. In our judgment, therefore, a patent, manifest and self- evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it, can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record and can be corrected while exercising certiorari jurisdiction. An error cannot be said…

Town Vividoddesha Sahakari Bhandara Niyamitha, Tumkuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Tumkur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1089/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 80P

…ers, 82 ITR 50 (SC). 6. The ld. standing counsel supported the order passed u/s. 154 of the Act and the order of the CIT(Appeals). He relied on the judgment Page 4 of 7 of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The case was selected for scrutiny to examine deduction claimed under Chapter VIA of the Act [referred to in para 2 of the assessment order u/s. 143(3) dated 14.12.2016]. The AO after examining the assessee’s contention allowed deduction u/s. 80P of the Act amountin…

Kathleen Confectioners, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-32, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1187/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri N. S. Saini, Advocate & Shri SonuFor Respondent: Shri Loviesh Shelley, JCIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…me Court in the case of “Manoj Parihar and Ors. Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors” SLP(C) No.11039 of 2022 vide order dated 27.06.2022; “PV Goerge vs. State of Kerala” (2007) 3 SCC 557; Assistant Commissioner vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 14 SCC 171, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that judges do not make law, they only discover and find the correct law. Even, that where an earlier decision of the court operate for quite some time, the decision rendered later on would have retrospective effect clarifying the legal position which were earlier not correctly understood. In view of th…

Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre Limited, Kochi vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 1(2), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 71/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daslakeshore Hospital & Rsearch Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle Centre Ltd. 1(1), C.R. Building, Xvi Maradu, Nh 47 Bye Pass Vs. Is Press Road, Netoor P.O., Kochi 682040 Kochi 682018 [Pan:Aaacl4923A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rohini V. Thampi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ord. There is, clearly, no legal bar for effecting a rectification on the basis of a binding decision by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, and toward which the Revenue rightly relies on the decisionsinAsst. CIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227(SC)and KilKotagiri Tea & Coffee Estate Co. Ltd. vs. ITAT [1988] 174 ITR 579 (Ker). The same does not, however, exclude the scope for consideration of the assessee’s case, only on hearing whom a rectification u/s. 154, where prejudicial,could be in lawmade. The issue arising is the consequence of inability to pay in view of the non-acceptance of t…

Maquet Medical India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6524/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 115O(4)Section 234DSection 250Section 41(1)

…nd to be in conformity with the settled position of law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex court in the afore mentioned judgments. As such, in the backdrop of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kuth Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC), wherein it was observed that a non-consideration by the Tribunal of a judgment of the jurisdictional High Court or the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, though not brought to the notice of the Tribunal at the time of hearing of the appeal would constitute a 7 ITAs 6524 & 5789/Mum/2017 Maquet Medical India Pvt. Ltd. “mistake apparent from record” which…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Maquet Medical India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5789/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 115O(4)Section 234DSection 250Section 41(1)

Shyam Sunder, Bhopal vs. The CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assesse is dismissed

ITA 161/IND/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoshyam Sunder Trivedi Ito1(4) Opp.-1 Vashundra State Bank Bhopal Vs. Colony Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Actpt 3280G Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254Section 254(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(via)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE SMC BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shyam Sunder Trivedi ITO1(4) Opp.-1 Vashundra State Bank Bhopal Vs. Colony Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) PAN: ACTPT 3280G Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement 16.11.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 14.07.2021 of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for Assessment Year 2019-20. The asse…

Scns Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, disallowance in principle is confirmed, but restricted up to Rs

ITA 2170/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalscns Private Limited 21 A Chapel Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400 050 Pan: Aazcs2004A ...... Appellant Vs. Cpc Bengalure Begaluru-560 500 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kakoli Ghosh, Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…is order we will discuss the grounds on merits raised by the assessee about the disallowance made by CPC, Bengaluru. In this regard we heavily relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC), wherein it was held as under:- The core issue, therefore, is whether non-consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional Court or of the Supreme Court can be said to be a 'mistake apparent from the record'? Both, the 4 SCNS Private Limited Tribunal and the High Court were right in holding that such a mistake can be said to be a 'mistake appa…