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 154Section 250Section 147Section 143(1)Section 263Section 142(1)Section 148
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 254(2)mistake apparent from recordmistake apparent on recordsection 2(24)section 254miscellaneous applicationsection 36(1)(va)section 43bsection 36(1)section 154section 36section 25

Judgments citing ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.

Phoenix Udyog Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 39/KOL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.39/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Phoenix Udyog Pvt. Ltd.……….....................................……………....Appellant 9, Vishal Market, West Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi-110009. [Pan: Aaccp4046N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata.......…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ankur Goyal, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 18, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.12.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 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…

ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ixia Technologies Pvt. Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2292/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner Of Ixia Technologies Pvt. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), Limited (Now Merged With Kolkata. Keysight Technologies India Vs. Pvt. Limited) Infinity Tower-Ii, Block-Gp, Sector-V, 8Th Floor, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091. (Pan: Aaccc5468K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154

…section 206CB” 13 Ixia Technologies Pvt. Ltd., (now merged with Keysight Technologies India Pvt. Limited) AY 2009-10 9.1. On the phrase ‘mistake apparent from record’, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC) has dealt it extensively and explained it as under: “37. In our judgment, therefore, a patent, manifest and self-evident error which does not require 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 canno…

M.P. Poonia, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Bikaner

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 389/JODH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Oct 2023AY 2008-09
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 154Section 154(8)

…strike proper limb of the notice makes the notice illegal and issued without application of mind and all proceedings based on that notice as null and void. The CIT(A)'s simply mentioning that the facts are different is not legal. As per Supreme Court decision 305 ITR 227 in the case of Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange "Non-consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional High Court or of the Supreme Court is a mistake apparent from the record which could be rectified." Delhi High Court decision in the case of PCIT-08 vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar traders Pvt. Ltd. reported in 383 ITR 448 (Delhi) has also held that not to…

Om Prakash, Jodhpur vs. Ld. AO Ward 3(4), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1713/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Om Prakash Near Mobile World Ratanada Defence Lab Road Jodhpur-342 001 Rajasthan Pan: Acpp0758B ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kakoli Ghosh
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 254(2)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…uss the merit as well as technical issue raised by the assessee about the procedure being adopted 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 Shri Om Prakash Tribunal and the High Court were right in holding that such a mistake can be said to be a 'mistake apparent…

Vishnu Cotton Mills Ltd, 2017-18 vs. AO, Cir.11, Kol, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 489/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.488 & 489/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Vishnu Cotton Mills Ltd………...................................................……Appellant Narayanpur, P.O-Rajarhat, Gopalpur, W.B-700136. [Pan: Aabcv0405G] Vs. Ao, Circle-11, Kolkata..................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Chirajit Goswami, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 26, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 29.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments. 3. The Issue Raised By The Assessee Has Come To Rest By The Recent Verdict Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…and Ors” I.T.A No.488&489/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2017-18 Vishnu Cotton Mills Ltd 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…

Vishnu Cotton Mills Ltd, 2017-18 vs. AO, Cir.11, Kol, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 488/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.488 & 489/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Vishnu Cotton Mills Ltd………...................................................……Appellant Narayanpur, P.O-Rajarhat, Gopalpur, W.B-700136. [Pan: Aabcv0405G] Vs. Ao, Circle-11, Kolkata..................................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Chirajit Goswami, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 03, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 26, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 29.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments. 3. The Issue Raised By The Assessee Has Come To Rest By The Recent Verdict Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…and Ors” I.T.A No.488&489/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2017-18 Vishnu Cotton Mills Ltd 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…

Vishash Agarwal, Tinsukia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Dibrugarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 39/GTY/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.39/Gty/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vishesh Agarwal…………………..……....….........…..........….…… Appellant C/O Assam Pushpak Travel Agency, Makum Road, Tinsukia, Assam – 786170. [Pan: Aghpa7072R] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dibrugarh……………..….…..…...…..…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Soumendu Sekhar Das, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 20, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 20, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.03.2020 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Issue Involved In These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.39/GTY/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vishesh Agarwal…………………..……....….........…..........….…… Appellant C/o Assam Pushpak Travel Agency, Makum Road, Tinsukia, Assam – 786170. [PAN: AGHPA7072R] vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Dibrugarh……………..….…..…...…..…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Soumendu Sekhar Das, DR, appeared on behalf of the re…

M/S Chempaka Kindergarten Pvt. Ltd., Trivandrum vs. The CIT (Appeals), Circle 1(1), Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 791/COCH/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Sept 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Telma Raju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 154Section 2(24)(x)

…ation of an order could be made on the basis of a decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court or the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, even if rendered after the date of the order sought to be rectified (refer: Asst. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC); Kil Kotagiri Tea & Coffee Estates Ltd. v. ITAT [1988] 174 ITR 579 (Ker); CIT v. Aruna Luthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 (P&H)). We, accordingly, have no hesitation in, as fairly conceded to by the assessee, dismissing it’s instant appeal as without merit. We decide accordingly. 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced i…

Dipen Kumarpal Parekh, Mumbai vs. NFAC- DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1703/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chougule, DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(via)

…e section 254(2) of the Act a able section 254(2) of the Act as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT v. Suarashtra Kutch ACIT v. Suarashtra Kutch Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 I Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC). TR 227 (SC). Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even non considering of a non considering of a prior or subsequent decision of the jurisdictional Court renders it as a subsequent decision of the jurisdictional Court render subsequent decision of the jurisdictional Court render mistake apparent…

Dilip Pathak, Guwahati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Guwahati

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3/GTY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…unal. The Tribunal after hearing the parties had allowed the applications of the Department vide order dated 10th August, 2023. It is pertinent to observe that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT –vs.- Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited reported in 305 ITR 227 has laid down that subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would brand the order of the Tribunal as suffering from apparent error if it runs contrary to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the point of law.…

Dilip Pathak, Guwahati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Guwahati

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2/GTY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…unal. The Tribunal after hearing the parties had allowed the applications of the Department vide order dated 10th August, 2023. It is pertinent to observe that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT –vs.- Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited reported in 305 ITR 227 has laid down that subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would brand the order of the Tribunal as suffering from apparent error if it runs contrary to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as well as of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the point of law.…

M/S. Add Construction, Guwahati vs. ACIT, Circle -1, Guwahati

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 14/GTY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.12,13&14/Gau/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2020-21 M/S Add Construction….…........…..…………....................……….……Appellant C/O Rahul Raj Jain & Co., H.No.15, 1St Floor, Bye Lane-2, Shaktigarh Path, Bhangagarh, G.S. Road, Assam-781005. [Pan: Aaifa2627H] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati ……….…............…….......................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N.T Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 22, 2023 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2018-19 To 2020-21 Are Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] All Dated 31.01.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Common Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 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…

M/S. Add Construction, Guwahati vs. ACIT, Circle -1, Guwahati

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 13/GTY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.12,13&14/Gau/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2020-21 M/S Add Construction….…........…..…………....................……….……Appellant C/O Rahul Raj Jain & Co., H.No.15, 1St Floor, Bye Lane-2, Shaktigarh Path, Bhangagarh, G.S. Road, Assam-781005. [Pan: Aaifa2627H] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati ……….…............…….......................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N.T Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 22, 2023 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2018-19 To 2020-21 Are Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] All Dated 31.01.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Common Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 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…

M/S. Add Construction, Guwahati vs. ACIT, Circle -1, Guwahati

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 12/GTY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.12,13&14/Gau/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2020-21 M/S Add Construction….…........…..…………....................……….……Appellant C/O Rahul Raj Jain & Co., H.No.15, 1St Floor, Bye Lane-2, Shaktigarh Path, Bhangagarh, G.S. Road, Assam-781005. [Pan: Aaifa2627H] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati ……….…............…….......................…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N.T Sherpa, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 22, 2023 Order Per Manish Borad: All These Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2018-19 To 2020-21 Are Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] All Dated 31.01.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Common Issue Involved In All These Appeals Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments.

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 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…

Om Prakash Bishu, Kuchaman City vs. DCIT, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/JODH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2023AY 2019-20
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142ASection 142A(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 69B

…there is no justification for taxing such income U/s 115BBE of the Act. (iii).Non following of a decision of jurisdictional High Court is mistake apparent from record rectifiable u/s 154/254(2) of the Act. ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC), CIT v. ArunaLuthra, (2001) 252 ITR 76 (P. & H.)(FB). 21 Om Prakash Bishnu (iv).It is also important to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT v. Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd., (2017) 394 ITR 001(SC) has held that even in a case of a debatable issue, if there is a decision of the jurisdictional High Court on an issue ,…

Inventys Research Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is allowed, while the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1999/MUM/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Heta ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 2(24)Section 254(1)Section 254(2)Section 36(1)(va)

…(1)(va) of the Act. On the basis of this decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Revenue has preferred the present M.A. under section 254(2) of the Act. 5. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT v/s Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange, [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC) held that non–consideration of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court can be said to be a “mistake apparent from record” which can be rectified under section 254(2) of the Act. We further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange (supra) also held that the judicial deci…

Rochem Separation Systems India Pvt Ltd, Bandra East Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is allowed, while the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 270/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 2(24)Section 254(1)Section 254(2)Section 36(1)(va)

…(1)(va) of the Act. On the basis of this decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Revenue has preferred the present M.A. under section 254(2) of the Act. 5. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT v/s Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange, [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC) held that non–consideration of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court can be said to be a “mistake apparent from record” which can be rectified under section 254(2) of the Act. We further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange (supra) also held that the judicial deci…

Harman Finochem Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Assessing Officer, Circle14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue and the appeal by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2273/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Gaikwad
Section 2(24)Section 254(2)Section 36(1)(va)

…(1)(va) of the Act. On the basis of this decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Revenue has preferred the present M.A. under section 254(2) of the Act. 5. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT v/s Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange, [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC) held that non–consideration of the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court can be said to be a “mistake apparent from record” which can be rectified under section 254(2) of the Act. We further find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange (supra) also held that the judicial deci…

Srg Earth Resources Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. Asst.DIT, CPC, Bengalure, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 287/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 287/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Srg Earth Resources Private Limited Asst. Dit, Cpc, Bengaluru 16, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Vs Gandhi House, Dalhousie Kolkata - 700013 [Pan : Aajcs2276A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. S. Dasgupta, Fca Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 10/01/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Relating To The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre (Cpc) U/S 36(1)(Va) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) Of The Act On Account Of Delayed Deposit Of Employees’ Contribution To Pf/Esi I.E. After The Due Date As Provided Under The Respective Welfare Enactments. 3. The Issue Raised By The Assessee Has Come To Rest By The Recent Verdict Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cit (2022) 143 Taxmann.Com 178 (Sc) Dated 12.10.2022 Wherein It Has Been Held That “Deduction U/S 36(1)(Va) In Respect Of Delayed Deposit

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Dasgupta, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 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…

Weltech Facility Management Services (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-27(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand

ITA 265/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 2(24)(x)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…