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.

Silkasia, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengluru

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

ITA 400/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash
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…

Raja & Mitsu Fashions, Kolkata vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Kolkata

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

ITA 472/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.471&472/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Raja & Mitsu Fashions….…………………................................……Appellant 156A, Lelin Sarani, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700013. [Pan: Aaefr5072P] Vs. Acit, Cpc, Bengaluru...….…….............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 27, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 14.03.2023 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.

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…

Raja & Mitsu Fashions, Kolkata vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru, Kolkata

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

ITA 471/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.471&472/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Raja & Mitsu Fashions….…………………................................……Appellant 156A, Lelin Sarani, 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700013. [Pan: Aaefr5072P] Vs. Acit, Cpc, Bengaluru...….…….............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 27, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 14.03.2023 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.

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…

Microviews Infosystems Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Ward-9(1), Kolkata

ITA 642/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.642/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Microviews Infosystems Pvt. Ltd. ………...................................……Appellant 148A, Cit Road, Scheme-Vim, Kolkata-700054. [Pan: Aafcm0646L] Vs. Dcit, Circle-9(1), Kolkata….…….............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana & Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May11, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यकसद"य"वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.09.2022 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 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 t…

Dalmia Laminators Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 187/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.187/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dalmia Laminators Ltd.…………………................................……Appellant 130, Cotton Street, Burra Bazar, Kolkata-700007. [Pan: Aabcd1748C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata….…….............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri N. S. Saini & Priyanka Salarpuria, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 26, 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 09.1.2023 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 Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer/Cpc 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

…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…

Siddhi Vinayaka Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, Bengaluru / I.T.O., Circle - 7(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 143/KOL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri P. R. Kothari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 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…

M/S. Ganeshbari Tea Co. (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 2, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 11/GTY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.11/Gty/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Goneshbari Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. ………....….........…..........….…… Appellant 4/1, Middleton Street, Shakespear Sarani, Kolkata-700071. [Pan: Aabcg7880Q] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Guwahati….………….…..…...…..…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sumeet Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ps Thuingaleng, Acit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 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 31.10.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Guwahati [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Dated 31-10-2022 Passed By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…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. I.T.A. No.11/GTY/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Goneshbari Tea Company Pvt. 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 t…

Transcon Freight System Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 85/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
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…

Sharda Silicate & Chemical Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 211/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
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…

M/S. Makhija Electromechanical Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Mumbai

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

ITA 1635/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
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…

Reuters India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD) RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is allowed, while ground no

ITA 9045/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati
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…

Nov India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 547/MUM/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Nov India Private Limited Plot No. R/497, Ttc Industrial Area, Rabale, Navi Mumbai- 400 071 Pan: Aadcr4279E ...... Appellant Vs. Cit/Nfac Delhi ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Apurva Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 36(1)

…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 Tribunal and the High Court were right in holding that such a mistake can be said to be a 'mistake apparent from the record' w…

M/S Sreelekshmi Cashew Company, Kollam vs. The ITO, Ward 1 & Tps, Kollam

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 879/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeysreelekshmi Cashew Company The Income Tax Officer Lekshmi Prabha, Kadappakkada Ward - 1 & Tps, Kollam Vs. Kollam 691008 [Pan:Aazfs1211Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri T.V. Hariharan, Ca Respondent By: Dr. Prasanth V.K., Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri T.V. Hariharan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Prasanth V.K., CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 44A

…sregard of the law in passing an order contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. Equally incomprehensible is the assessee’s challenge thereto. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in Asst. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 277 (SC) explained that the decision by the jurisdictional High Court even subsequent to the passing of the order shall invite its rectification inasmuch as the said decision relates back in time to the date of the said order. The specific issue has in fact since attained finality, i.e., on pan-India basis, by the decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court i…

Arun Waman Koli, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalure

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 413/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on: 366 ITR 170 (Guj). 13. It is settled legal position that judicial decisions, as a general rule, act retrospectively. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.: 2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC) has observed as under: 9 “42. In our judgment, it is also well-settled that a judicial decision acts retrospectively. According to Blackstonian theory, it is not the function of the Court to pronounce a 'new rule' but to maintain and expound the 'old one'. In other words, Judges do not make law, they only discover or find the correct law. T…

Itesh Brdoloi, Bongaigaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 29/GTY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.29/Gau/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Itesh Bordoloi………...…………....…………....….........…..........….…… Appellant C/O Chirang Hardware, Chapaguri Part Ii, Chapaguri, Assam-783380. [Pan: Achpb1157E] Vs. Acit, Circle-2, 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 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 06, 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 20.07.2022 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

…mmu & 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. I.T.A. No.29/Gau/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Itesh Bordoloi (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 t…

Hemendra Nath Deka, Guwahati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 6/GTY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati05 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.5&6/Gau/2022 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Hemendra Nath Deka…………....…………....….........…..........….…… Appellant House No.6, Dolphin Security & Advertising, Kamakhya Temple Road, Kamakhya Gate, Guwahati-781009, Kamrup, Assam. [Pan: Ajupd3564F] Vs. Acit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Ito, Ward-1(2), 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 05, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 05, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 09.12.2021 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 & Common Issue Involved In Both The 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 "ी "गर"श अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member I.T.A. Nos.5&6/Gau/2022 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Hemendra Nath Deka…………....…………....….........…..........….…… Appellant House no.6, Dolphin Security and Advertising, Kamakhya Temple Road, Kamakhya Gate, Guwahati-781009, Kamrup, Assam. [PAN: AJUPD3564F] vs. ACIT, CPC, Bengaluru (ITO, Ward-1(2), Guwahati)…...…..…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf o…

Hemendra Nath Deka, Guwahati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 5/GTY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati05 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. Nos.5&6/Gau/2022 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Hemendra Nath Deka…………....…………....….........…..........….…… Appellant House No.6, Dolphin Security & Advertising, Kamakhya Temple Road, Kamakhya Gate, Guwahati-781009, Kamrup, Assam. [Pan: Ajupd3564F] Vs. Acit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Ito, Ward-1(2), 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 05, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 05, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 09.12.2021 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 & Common Issue Involved In Both The 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 "ी "गर"श अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member I.T.A. Nos.5&6/Gau/2022 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Hemendra Nath Deka…………....…………....….........…..........….…… Appellant House no.6, Dolphin Security and Advertising, Kamakhya Temple Road, Kamakhya Gate, Guwahati-781009, Kamrup, Assam. [PAN: AJUPD3564F] vs. ACIT, CPC, Bengaluru (ITO, Ward-1(2), Guwahati)…...…..…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf o…

M/S St. Alphonsa Timbers & Traders (Pvt) Ltd, Maradu vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Kochi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 888/COCH/2022[QUARTER-II 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jun 2023

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rajeev, (Adv)For Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 220(2)Section 234Section 234E

…servation of this Tribunal in the case of Kerala Gramin Bank ITA. No. 797/Coch/2022 and others order dated 03.03.2023 wherein in the Tribunal observed as under: - “So, however, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Asst. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 277 (SC) clarified that a decision by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court shall be binding and lead to rectification where an order inconsistent therewith has been passed; rather, even where the same is prior to the binding decision by the Hon'ble High Court inasmuch as it would relate back to the period to which it pertains to. Though rendered in…

M/S St. Alphonsa Timbers and Traders (Pvt) Ltd, Maradu vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Kochi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 887/COCH/2022[QUARTER-IV 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Jun 2023

Bench: SHRI SANJAY ARORA (Accountant Member), SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rajeev, (Adv)For Respondent: Smt J. M Jamuna Devi, (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 220(2)Section 234Section 234E

…servation of this Tribunal in the case of Kerala Gramin Bank ITA. No. 797/Coch/2022 and others order dated 03.03.2023 wherein in the Tribunal observed as under: - “So, however, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Asst. CIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 277 (SC) clarified that a decision by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court shall be binding and lead to rectification where an order inconsistent therewith has been passed; rather, even where the same is prior to the binding decision by the Hon'ble High Court inasmuch as it would relate back to the period to which it pertains to. Though rendered in…

Pradman Engineering Services P Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 91/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…on’ble Supreme Court. It is settled legal position that judicial decisions, as a general rule, 11. act retrospectively. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.: 2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC) has observed as under: “42. In our judgment, it is also well-settled that a judicial decision acts retrospectively. According to Blackstonian theory, it is not the function of the Court to pronounce a 'new rule' but to maintain and expound the 'old one'. In other words, Judges do not make law, they only discover or find the correct law. The…