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.

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 227)

Odex India Solutions P Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 147/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…

M/S. P.A.Zaveri, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Begaluru

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 2057/MUM/2021[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…

First Choice Ready Mix, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-50(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 612/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.612/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 First Choice Ready Mix................................................................……Appellant R No.2A&B, 2Nd Floor, Anandpur Sarachi Tower, E M Byepass Road, East Kolkata Township, Kolkata-700107. [Pan: Aadff9917A] Vs. Ito, Ward-50(2), Kolkata...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vigyaneshward Nath Datta, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. I.T.A No.591/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pratap Kundu...............................................................................……Appellant Jogipara, Bankura, P.O & Dist-Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Amupk9918R] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. K. Sen, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 21, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2023

Section 143(1)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 I.T.A No.612/Kol/2022 & I.T.A No.591/Kol/2022 First Choice Ready Mix & Pratap Kundu Assessment year: 2018-19 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…

Pratap Kundu, Bankura Jogipara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Bankura

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

ITA 591/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.612/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 First Choice Ready Mix................................................................……Appellant R No.2A&B, 2Nd Floor, Anandpur Sarachi Tower, E M Byepass Road, East Kolkata Township, Kolkata-700107. [Pan: Aadff9917A] Vs. Ito, Ward-50(2), Kolkata...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vigyaneshward Nath Datta, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. I.T.A No.591/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pratap Kundu...............................................................................……Appellant Jogipara, Bankura, P.O & Dist-Bankura, Pin-722101. [Pan: Amupk9918R] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Bankura...........................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. K. Sen, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 21, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2023

Section 143(1)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 I.T.A No.612/Kol/2022 & I.T.A No.591/Kol/2022 First Choice Ready Mix & Pratap Kundu Assessment year: 2018-19 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…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 61/KOL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A No.61/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Siddhi Vinayaka Graphics Pvt. Ltd.................................................……Appellant 58/5B, B.T. Road, Kolkata-700002 [Pan: Aakcs3206R] Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru/ Acit, Circle-7(2), Kolkata….…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. R. Kothari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 16, 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 30.11.2022 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 Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “For That On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Nfac Erred In Sustaining The Addition On Account Of Alleged Late Deposit Of Employee’S Contribution To Pf/Esi Etc. To The Extent Of Rs.792872/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer In Summary Assessment.”

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘एसएमसी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member I.T.A No.61/Kol/2023 Assessment year: 2020-21 Siddhi Vinayaka Graphics Pvt. Ltd.................................................……Appellant 58/5B, B.T. Road, Kolkata-700002 [PAN: AAKCS3206R] vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru/ ACIT, Circle-7(2), Kolkata….…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri P. R. Kothari, FCA, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Res…

Nepal Chandra Dey, Ranchi vs. Assitant /Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 63/RAN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.63/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Nepal Chandra Dey.……....…...………………......................……...…..….. Appellant 58, Tatisilwai, Gandhi Nagar, Ranchi – 835103. [Pan: Agrpd0835D] Vs. Acit/Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi.…..…..………..…….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 02, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.06.2022 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’).

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

…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…

Uma Polymers Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Central Processing Centre, Bangaluru

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 63/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyaluma Polymers Limited 215, Raheja Plaza, Off Veera Desai Road Andheri (W) Mumbai- 400053 Pan: Aaacu0748E ...... Appellant Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Processing Centre Bangalore, Karnataka-560 500 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 254Section 254(2)Section 36(1)

…gh this order we will discuss 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 Saurashtra Kutch “[2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC) ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. 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 t…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi vs. Panalpina World Transport (I) P.Ltd, New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 2380/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Panalpine World Vs. Addl. Cit, Transport India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-7, 5Th Floor, Orchid Business New Delhi Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Pan :Aaacp7676A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Addl. Cit, Vs. M/S. Panalpine World Special Range-7, Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Plot No. 227/2, Dhulsiras, Dwarka, Sector-24, New Delhi Pan :Aaacp7676A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(3)

…jurisdiction of appeal. This principle is applicable even if the transfer is under section 12 7 for the same assessment year(s)." 9. For completeness, it is humbly submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. 12008] 305 ITR 227 (SC) has held that "It is also well settled that a judicial decision acts retrospectively." Thus, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ABC Papers Limited (supra) shall apply even to pending appeals sub-judice before this Hon'ble Tribunal and accordingly, in the present facts, the jurisdiction to adjudicate the captioned cross-appeals…

Panalpina World Transport India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 2168/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Panalpine World Vs. Addl. Cit, Transport India Pvt. Ltd., Special Range-7, 5Th Floor, Orchid Business New Delhi Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon Pan :Aaacp7676A (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Addl. Cit, Vs. M/S. Panalpine World Special Range-7, Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Plot No. 227/2, Dhulsiras, Dwarka, Sector-24, New Delhi Pan :Aaacp7676A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(3)

…jurisdiction of appeal. This principle is applicable even if the transfer is under section 12 7 for the same assessment year(s)." 9. For completeness, it is humbly submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ACIT vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. 12008] 305 ITR 227 (SC) has held that "It is also well settled that a judicial decision acts retrospectively." Thus, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ABC Papers Limited (supra) shall apply even to pending appeals sub-judice before this Hon'ble Tribunal and accordingly, in the present facts, the jurisdiction to adjudicate the captioned cross-appeals…

Kerala Gramin Bank, Udiyankulangara Branch, Thiruvananthapuram vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 835/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…and Rajesh Kourani v. UoI [2017] 99 CCH 098 (Guj), so that the matter cannot be regarded as a mistake of law per se, justifying rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. 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…

Kerala Gramin Bank, Omalloor Branch, Pathanamthitta vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 834/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…and Rajesh Kourani v. UoI [2017] 99 CCH 098 (Guj), so that the matter cannot be regarded as a mistake of law per se, justifying rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. 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…

Kerala Gramin Bank, Omalloor Branch, Pathanamthitta vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 833/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…and Rajesh Kourani v. UoI [2017] 99 CCH 098 (Guj), so that the matter cannot be regarded as a mistake of law per se, justifying rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. 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…

Kerala Gramin Bank, Irulam Branch, Wayanad vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 832/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…and Rajesh Kourani v. UoI [2017] 99 CCH 098 (Guj), so that the matter cannot be regarded as a mistake of law per se, justifying rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. 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…

Kerala Gramin Bank, Irulam Branch, Wayanad vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 831/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…and Rajesh Kourani v. UoI [2017] 99 CCH 098 (Guj), so that the matter cannot be regarded as a mistake of law per se, justifying rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. 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…

Kerala Gramin Bank, Irulam Branch, Wayanad vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 830/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…and Rajesh Kourani v. UoI [2017] 99 CCH 098 (Guj), so that the matter cannot be regarded as a mistake of law per se, justifying rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. 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…

Kerala Gramin Bank, Irulam Branch, Wayanad vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 829/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q, Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…and Rajesh Kourani v. UoI [2017] 99 CCH 098 (Guj), so that the matter cannot be regarded as a mistake of law per se, justifying rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. 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…

Kerala Gramin Bank, Ulliyeri Branch, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 828/COCH/2022[2013-2014(27Q,Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…and Rajesh Kourani v. UoI [2017] 99 CCH 098 (Guj), so that the matter cannot be regarded as a mistake of law per se, justifying rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. 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…

Kerala Gramin Bank, Ulliyeri Branch, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 826/COCH/2022[2013-2014 (24Q, Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…and Rajesh Kourani v. UoI [2017] 99 CCH 098 (Guj), so that the matter cannot be regarded as a mistake of law per se, justifying rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. 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…

Kerala Gramin Bank, Ulliyeri Branch, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 825/COCH/2022[2013-2014(26Q,Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…and Rajesh Kourani v. UoI [2017] 99 CCH 098 (Guj), so that the matter cannot be regarded as a mistake of law per se, justifying rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. 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…

Kerala Gramin Bank, Ulliyeri Branch, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Kozhikode

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 824/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Mar 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Written Submissions (through S/Sh. Pratik Sadrani, HardikFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234ESection 234E(1)

…and Rajesh Kourani v. UoI [2017] 99 CCH 098 (Guj), so that the matter cannot be regarded as a mistake of law per se, justifying rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. 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…

ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.

Odex India Solutions P Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

M/S. P.A.Zaveri, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Begaluru

First Choice Ready Mix, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-50(2), Kolkata

Pratap Kundu, Bankura Jogipara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Bankura

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

Nepal Chandra Dey, Ranchi vs. Assitant /Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Ranchi

Uma Polymers Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Central Processing Centre, Bangaluru

Addl.CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi vs. Panalpina World Transport (I) P.Ltd, New Delhi

Panalpina World Transport India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi

Kerala Gramin Bank, Udiyankulangara Branch, Thiruvananthapuram vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala Gramin Bank, Omalloor Branch, Pathanamthitta vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala Gramin Bank, Omalloor Branch, Pathanamthitta vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala Gramin Bank, Irulam Branch, Wayanad vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Kozhikode

Kerala Gramin Bank, Irulam Branch, Wayanad vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Kozhikode

Kerala Gramin Bank, Irulam Branch, Wayanad vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Kozhikode

Kerala Gramin Bank, Irulam Branch, Wayanad vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Kozhikode

Kerala Gramin Bank, Ulliyeri Branch, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Kozhikode

Kerala Gramin Bank, Ulliyeri Branch, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Kozhikode

Kerala Gramin Bank, Ulliyeri Branch, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Kozhikode

Kerala Gramin Bank, Ulliyeri Branch, Kozhikode vs. The ITO Ward TDS, Kozhikode