CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd.

228 ITR 463Supreme Court of India1997#318 most cited

What is CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. authority for?

A point not examined on facts or in law cannot be treated as a mistake apparent on record for rectification purposes.

262

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. · Hero Cycles · 228 ITR 463 · 94 Taxmann 271 · mistake apparent on record · rectification · point not examined · facts or law · Section 143(3) · Section 14A

Also reported as

94 Taxmann 271

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 115JBSection 14ASection 153DSection 153B(1)(b)Section 250Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 234e(1)installation pesection 119(1)use of equipmentsection 253(2)dependent agent pesection 119(2)(a)section 44dagency peservice pefunctional analysissection 200a(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd.

Steria (India) Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Spl. Range- 8, New Delhi

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 5745/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…d not the view expressed in a decision of the Supreme Court or the High Court. To the same effect are the following decisions:  CCE v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries : 220 CTR 98 (SC)  J&K Synthetics vs. CIT: 83 ITR 335 (SC)  CIT vs. Hero Cycles Pvt Ltd : 228 ITR 463(SC)  CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd : [2012] 345 ITR 135 (Delhi)  CIT v. Central Bank of India: 185 ITR 6 (Bom)  CIT v. Indian Oil Co. Ltd : [2012] 254 CTR 113 (Bom) 50. He further submitted that the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of VST Industries Ltd v. ACIT in ITA No. 647/Hyd/2012, conferring with the view of the…

M/S Steria Ndia Ltd., Noida vs. Addl CIT, New Delhi

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 741/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…d not the view expressed in a decision of the Supreme Court or the High Court. To the same effect are the following decisions:  CCE v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries : 220 CTR 98 (SC)  J&K Synthetics vs. CIT: 83 ITR 335 (SC)  CIT vs. Hero Cycles Pvt Ltd : 228 ITR 463(SC)  CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd : [2012] 345 ITR 135 (Delhi)  CIT v. Central Bank of India: 185 ITR 6 (Bom)  CIT v. Indian Oil Co. Ltd : [2012] 254 CTR 113 (Bom) 50. He further submitted that the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of VST Industries Ltd v. ACIT in ITA No. 647/Hyd/2012, conferring with the view of the…

Steria India Ltd., Noida vs. Addl.CIT, Speciaql Range-8, New Delhi

In the result ITA number 5745/del/2018 for assessment year 2014 – 15

ITA 3992/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam Kant Garg, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…d not the view expressed in a decision of the Supreme Court or the High Court. To the same effect are the following decisions:  CCE v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries : 220 CTR 98 (SC)  J&K Synthetics vs. CIT: 83 ITR 335 (SC)  CIT vs. Hero Cycles Pvt Ltd : 228 ITR 463(SC)  CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd : [2012] 345 ITR 135 (Delhi)  CIT v. Central Bank of India: 185 ITR 6 (Bom)  CIT v. Indian Oil Co. Ltd : [2012] 254 CTR 113 (Bom) 50. He further submitted that the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal in the case of VST Industries Ltd v. ACIT in ITA No. 647/Hyd/2012, conferring with the view of the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. M.N. Dastur Company Private Limited, Bangalore

Accordingly the same is dismissed

ITA 2054/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: None
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 11Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

…Act. 6.3 In the light of various decisions of the Courts. a non- speaking order and a debatable issue cannot form a part of the 154 proceedings and is bad in law. Keeping the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. etc. (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under: “Rectification under section 154 can only be made when a giving mistake of fact or law committed by the officer passing the order becomes apparent from the record. Rectification is not possible if the question is debatable. Moreover, a point which was not examined on facts or in…

Shri Rajendra Agrawal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1052/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1052/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cuke Shri Rajendra Agarwal The Ito Vs. 8/138, Vidhyadhar Nagar Ward- 7(1) Jaipur 302 039 Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aatpa 7184 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Paul, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 03 /03/2020 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 54Section 54F

…n of Hon'ble Supreme in the case of T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer vs Volkart Brothers & Ors, 82 ITR 50 (SC). The ld.AR of the assessee further contended that Hon'ble [2008] 219 CTR 90 as well as decision in the case of CIT vs Hero Cycles (P) Ltd (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC). Thus the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the AO while passing the scrutiny assessment on 30-12- 2013 had given a finding on the issue of deduction u/s 54 of the Act as well cost of acquisition and improvement. The AO accepted the claim after verification of the necessary evidences and he was satisfied about the allowability of dedu…

JCIT Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai vs. M/S. Brakes India Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1545/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos. 1543, 1544 & 1545/Chny/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…he case of the Revenue. The Circular does not dwell on the point which we are confronted with. 8.3.In any case, according to us, the Circulars are not binding on the Court, though, they may be binding on the Revenue. [See CIT V. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd., (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC)]. 9.The last submission that Mr.Ravi advanced, was, in fact, predicated on the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer, which, according to us, is misconceived, as the manner of calculation of depreciation, cannot, to our minds, impede the claim of the Assessee for balance additional depreciation, in the year following the previous year, i…

JCIT Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai vs. M/S. Brakes India Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1544/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos. 1543, 1544 & 1545/Chny/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…he case of the Revenue. The Circular does not dwell on the point which we are confronted with. 8.3.In any case, according to us, the Circulars are not binding on the Court, though, they may be binding on the Revenue. [See CIT V. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd., (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC)]. 9.The last submission that Mr.Ravi advanced, was, in fact, predicated on the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer, which, according to us, is misconceived, as the manner of calculation of depreciation, cannot, to our minds, impede the claim of the Assessee for balance additional depreciation, in the year following the previous year, i…

JCIT Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Chennai vs. M/S. Brakes India Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1543/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos. 1543, 1544 & 1545/Chny/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…he case of the Revenue. The Circular does not dwell on the point which we are confronted with. 8.3.In any case, according to us, the Circulars are not binding on the Court, though, they may be binding on the Revenue. [See CIT V. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd., (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC)]. 9.The last submission that Mr.Ravi advanced, was, in fact, predicated on the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer, which, according to us, is misconceived, as the manner of calculation of depreciation, cannot, to our minds, impede the claim of the Assessee for balance additional depreciation, in the year following the previous year, i…

M/S. Brakes India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit-2, Chennai

ITA 1465/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos. 1543, 1544 & 1545/Chny/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…he case of the Revenue. The Circular does not dwell on the point which we are confronted with. 8.3.In any case, according to us, the Circulars are not binding on the Court, though, they may be binding on the Revenue. [See CIT V. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd., (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC)]. 9.The last submission that Mr.Ravi advanced, was, in fact, predicated on the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer, which, according to us, is misconceived, as the manner of calculation of depreciation, cannot, to our minds, impede the claim of the Assessee for balance additional depreciation, in the year following the previous year, i…

M/S. Brakes India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit-2, Chennai

ITA 1464/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos. 1543, 1544 & 1545/Chny/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…he case of the Revenue. The Circular does not dwell on the point which we are confronted with. 8.3.In any case, according to us, the Circulars are not binding on the Court, though, they may be binding on the Revenue. [See CIT V. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd., (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC)]. 9.The last submission that Mr.Ravi advanced, was, in fact, predicated on the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer, which, according to us, is misconceived, as the manner of calculation of depreciation, cannot, to our minds, impede the claim of the Assessee for balance additional depreciation, in the year following the previous year, i…

M/S. Brakes India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Large Tax Payer Unit-2, Chennai

ITA 1463/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos. 1543, 1544 & 1545/Chny/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…he case of the Revenue. The Circular does not dwell on the point which we are confronted with. 8.3.In any case, according to us, the Circulars are not binding on the Court, though, they may be binding on the Revenue. [See CIT V. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd., (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC)]. 9.The last submission that Mr.Ravi advanced, was, in fact, predicated on the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer, which, according to us, is misconceived, as the manner of calculation of depreciation, cannot, to our minds, impede the claim of the Assessee for balance additional depreciation, in the year following the previous year, i…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. India Piston Ltd., Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2384/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2339 & 2340/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12. M/S. India Pistons Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Huzur Gardens, Income Tax, Sembium, Corporate Circle 2(2) Chennai 600 011. Chennai.

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)

…he case of the Revenue. The Circular does not dwell on the point which we are confronted with. 8.3.In any case, according to us, the Circulars are not binding on the Court, though, they may be binding on the Revenue. [See CIT V. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd., (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC)]. ITA No. 2339-40-83-84/2017 :- 18 -: 9.The last submission that Mr.Ravi advanced, was, in fact, predicated on the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer, which, according to us, is misconceived, as the manner of calculation of depreciation, cannot, to our minds, impede the claim of the Assessee for balance additional depreciation, in t…

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. India Piston Ltd., Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2383/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2339 & 2340/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12. M/S. India Pistons Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Huzur Gardens, Income Tax, Sembium, Corporate Circle 2(2) Chennai 600 011. Chennai.

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)

…he case of the Revenue. The Circular does not dwell on the point which we are confronted with. 8.3.In any case, according to us, the Circulars are not binding on the Court, though, they may be binding on the Revenue. [See CIT V. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd., (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC)]. ITA No. 2339-40-83-84/2017 :- 18 -: 9.The last submission that Mr.Ravi advanced, was, in fact, predicated on the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer, which, according to us, is misconceived, as the manner of calculation of depreciation, cannot, to our minds, impede the claim of the Assessee for balance additional depreciation, in t…

India Pistons Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2340/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2339 & 2340/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12. M/S. India Pistons Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Huzur Gardens, Income Tax, Sembium, Corporate Circle 2(2) Chennai 600 011. Chennai.

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)

…he case of the Revenue. The Circular does not dwell on the point which we are confronted with. 8.3.In any case, according to us, the Circulars are not binding on the Court, though, they may be binding on the Revenue. [See CIT V. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd., (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC)]. ITA No. 2339-40-83-84/2017 :- 18 -: 9.The last submission that Mr.Ravi advanced, was, in fact, predicated on the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer, which, according to us, is misconceived, as the manner of calculation of depreciation, cannot, to our minds, impede the claim of the Assessee for balance additional depreciation, in t…

India Pistons Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 2339/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2339 & 2340/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2010-11 & 2011-12. M/S. India Pistons Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Huzur Gardens, Income Tax, Sembium, Corporate Circle 2(2) Chennai 600 011. Chennai.

For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)

…he case of the Revenue. The Circular does not dwell on the point which we are confronted with. 8.3.In any case, according to us, the Circulars are not binding on the Court, though, they may be binding on the Revenue. [See CIT V. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd., (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC)]. ITA No. 2339-40-83-84/2017 :- 18 -: 9.The last submission that Mr.Ravi advanced, was, in fact, predicated on the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer, which, according to us, is misconceived, as the manner of calculation of depreciation, cannot, to our minds, impede the claim of the Assessee for balance additional depreciation, in t…

Nsl Renewable Power Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2146/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year:2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Aman BarasiaFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

…restricted to rectification of apparent mistakes from his order and where the issue is debatable, such order cannot not be rectified u/s 154. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Hero Cycles (P) LTd (1997) 228 ITR 463 (S.C) ii) ITO vs. Volkat Brothers and Others (SC) (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) iii) CIT vs. Richa & Co (2001) 252 ITR 40 (Del.) iv) Satish Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 172 (Del.) v) CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd (2014) 228 Taxmann.com 184 (Bom HC) vi) DCIT vs. State Bank of Hyderabad (ITA No.1386/Hyd/2015) vii) DCIT vs. Arunachala Logi…

Smt. Birma Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

ITA 678/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

…e assessee failed to claim in the return before the Assessing Officer. (v) Anju Mittal v/s ACIT. (ITAT JP) - ITA 201/JP/2014 dt 30.04.15 (vi) Keshavji Ramji v/s CIT (SC) 183 ITR 1 (vii) J.P. Boder Co. v/s CBDT (SC) 223 ITR 271 (viii) CIT v/s Hero Cycles (SC) 228 ITR 463 (ix) CIT v/s National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (SC) 157 CTR 249 (x) C.I.T v/s Ramco International 332 ITR 306 (P&H) (xi) C.I.T v/s Bhaskar Mitter (Cal) 73 TAXMAN 437 (xii) C.I.T v/s Rajasthan Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. (Raj) 100 DTR 152 (xiii) Wipro Vs. CIT 282 CTR 346 15 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO (xiv) CIT Vs. Prithvi Brokers and Share Holder…

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Turbo Energy Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals are dismissed’’

ITA 2494/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 35

…he case of the Revenue. The Circular does not dwell on the point which we are confronted with. 8.3.In any case, according to us, the Circulars are not binding on the Court, though, they may be binding on the Revenue. [See CIT V. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd., (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC)]. 9.The last submission that Mr.Ravi advanced, was, in fact, predicated on the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer, which, according to us, is misconceived, as the manner of calculation of depreciation, cannot, to our minds, impede the claim of the Assessee for balance additional depreciation, in the year following the previous year, i…

Turbo Energy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals as well as Revenue’s appeals are dismissed’’

ITA 2493/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. S. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 35

…he case of the Revenue. The Circular does not dwell on the point which we are confronted with. 8.3.In any case, according to us, the Circulars are not binding on the Court, though, they may be binding on the Revenue. [See CIT V. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd., (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC)]. 9.The last submission that Mr.Ravi advanced, was, in fact, predicated on the reasoning given by the Assessing Officer, which, according to us, is misconceived, as the manner of calculation of depreciation, cannot, to our minds, impede the claim of the Assessee for balance additional depreciation, in the year following the previous year, i…

ACIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3445/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit – Circle – 2(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Icici Bank Ltd., R.No.552, 5Th Floor Icici Bank Towers Aayakar Bhavan South East Wing 9Th M.K.Road, Floor, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020 Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aaaci1195H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 88Section 88E

…ceivably two opinions, A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. [T.S. Balaram, /TO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC)]. It has further been held by the Apex Court in the case of C/T v. Hero Cycles. (P.) Ltd. [1997] 228 ITR 463/ 94 Taxman 271 that 'A point which was not examined on facts or in law cannot be dealt with as a mistake apparent from the record'. 5.2.5 In the instant case, the issue of whether or not the impugned rebate was claimed was not examined in facts or in law and was accepted in the assessment order u/s. 143(3). In view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex…