CIT v. South Indian Bank Ltd.

249 ITR 304Supreme Court of India2001#2707 most cited

What is CIT v. South Indian Bank Ltd. authority for?

The Supreme Court clarifies that the power of rectification under Section 254(2) is limited to correcting mistakes apparent from the record and does not allow for re-adjudication of debatable issues.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. South Indian Bank Ltd. · 249 ITR 304 · section 254(2) · section 154 · rectification · mistake apparent from record · debatable issues · Appellate Tribunal power to rectify · scope of rectification · Supreme Court 2001 judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 234e(1)section 200a(1)(c)section 254(2)section 200a(1)section 200(3)section 200asection 234esection 254(1)section 200tax deducted at sourcesection 20section 234

Judgments citing CIT v. South Indian Bank Ltd.

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

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

ITA 797/COCH/2022[2013-2014(24Q,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)

…as Bhatia Hingwala Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2011] 330 ITR 243 (Del)(FB), cited before him by the assessee, as being in respect of the power u/s. 254(2) of the Act. His reliance for the purpose on the decision in the case of CIT v. South Indian Bank Ltd. [2001] 249 ITR 304 (SC) and CIT v. Hero Cycles Ltd. [1997] 228 ITR 463 6 | P a g e ITA No.797/Coch/2022 & Ors. Kerala Gramin Bank, Onchiyam Branch & Ors. (SC), is misplaced. The same stand pursued to find as ousting debatable issues from the purview of s. 154. The decision by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court is binding within it’s territorial jurisdiction, s…

Shri Vikram Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Sikar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 484/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 234A

…mistake the authorities are trying to set aside one view of the assessing authority—Sec. 154 was not available to the authorities—Impugned orders set aside—ITO vs. Volkart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), CIT vs. South India Bank (2001) 166 CTR (SC) 216 : (2001) 249 ITR 304 (SC) and M.D. Narayan vs. Agrl. ITO (1974) 95 ITR 452 (Mys) relied on. 10 Shri Vikram Singh Shekhawat vs DCIT Circle –Sikar 2.3 In the case of Pr. CIT vs. Raigunj Central Co- Operative Bank Ltd. (2017) 98 CCH 0078 KolHC HELD Business Expenditure—Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts in Respect of Rural Advances of Certain Banks—Rectification—In…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Comverse Network Systems India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 1626/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

Section 90CSection 92CSection 92F

…port of the prayer for admitting additional/supplementary grounds. It was submitted that the judicial precedent laid permitted the admission of the additional ground:- i) CIT vs Krishak Bharti Co-operative Ltd. 266 ITR 208; ii) CIT vs South India Bank Ltd. 249 ITR 304; iii) CIT vs Keshri Metal Pvt.Ltd. 237 ITR 165. Page 4 of 28 I.T.A .No.-1626/Del/2011 & C.O.-144/Del/2011 5. The prayer for admission of additional ground was not objected to by the Ld.Sr.DR. Accordingly after considering the material on record and the stand of the respective parties before the Bench alongwith the judicial precedent relied up…