Deeksha Suri v. Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal

232 ITR 395Reported decision1998#23937 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 254(2)Section 32

Issues it is cited on

section 254(2)mistake apparent on recordmiscellaneous applicationsection 32regular assessmentsection 254section 143(1)section 25transfercompanyindiabusiness

Judgments citing Deeksha Suri v. Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal

JT. CIT (OSD)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SANJANA CRYOGENICS STORAGE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are allowed

ITA 4769/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R & Shri Bhangepatil
Section 143(1)

…confined to correcting obvious mistakes. For this proposition, we draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of K. L. Bhatia [1990] 182 ITR 361 (Delhi). In another case of Deeksha Suri v. Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal., (1998) 232 ITR 395, the Hon’ble Delhi I.T.A. No. 3632 & 3633/Mum/2018 I.T.A. No. 4769/Mum/2019 5 High Court reinforced that the rectification power does not equate to a substantive re-adjudication. 7.2. Therefore, we are of the considered view that when an order is recalled u/s 254(2) of the Act, for failure to consider a particular authority or arguments, the pur…

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SANJANA CRYOGENICS STORAGE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are allowed

ITA 3633/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R & Shri Bhangepatil
Section 143(1)

…confined to correcting obvious mistakes. For this proposition, we draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of K. L. Bhatia [1990] 182 ITR 361 (Delhi). In another case of Deeksha Suri v. Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal., (1998) 232 ITR 395, the Hon’ble Delhi I.T.A. No. 3632 & 3633/Mum/2018 I.T.A. No. 4769/Mum/2019 5 High Court reinforced that the rectification power does not equate to a substantive re-adjudication. 7.2. Therefore, we are of the considered view that when an order is recalled u/s 254(2) of the Act, for failure to consider a particular authority or arguments, the pur…

DCIT - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SANJANA CRYOGENICS STORAGES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are allowed

ITA 3632/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R & Shri Bhangepatil
Section 143(1)

…confined to correcting obvious mistakes. For this proposition, we draw support from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of K. L. Bhatia [1990] 182 ITR 361 (Delhi). In another case of Deeksha Suri v. Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal., (1998) 232 ITR 395, the Hon’ble Delhi I.T.A. No. 3632 & 3633/Mum/2018 I.T.A. No. 4769/Mum/2019 5 High Court reinforced that the rectification power does not equate to a substantive re-adjudication. 7.2. Therefore, we are of the considered view that when an order is recalled u/s 254(2) of the Act, for failure to consider a particular authority or arguments, the pur…