Gujarat in Suhrid Geigy Limited v. Commissioner of Surtax, Gujarat

237 ITR 834High Court1999#7942 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 254(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 37(1)Section 43B

Issues it is cited on

section 254(2)mistake apparent from recordemployees contribution to pfmiscellaneous applicationsection 143(1)(a)section 36(1)(va)section 254section 36(1)section 43bsection 36section 43section 139(1)

Judgments citing Gujarat in Suhrid Geigy Limited v. Commissioner of Surtax, Gujarat

RATIONAL BUSINESS CORPORATION PVT LTD,SONIPAT vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

Appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 4403/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4402 & 4403/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Rational Business Corporation Dcit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle 19(1), C.R. Building, Bahalgarh Chowk, Delhi, Sonepat Road, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Bahalgarh (73), Sonipat. Pan No.Aadcr1837J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…appeal against the assessment could not disentitle the assessee to seek rectification once patent error of law appeared on face of the record.” [Para 27] “The aforesaid principle has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Suhrid Geigy Ltd. v. CST [1999] 237 ITR 834 wherein one of us (Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.R. Dave) was a party to the decision. It is laid down in the said decisions that: "Section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 provides for rectification of mistake apparent from the record. A point which is debatable cannot be termed a mistake. But when the point is covered by a decision of the…

RATIONAL BUSINESS CORPORATION PVT LTD,SONIPAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

Appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 4402/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4402 & 4403/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Rational Business Corporation Dcit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle 19(1), C.R. Building, Bahalgarh Chowk, Delhi, Sonepat Road, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Bahalgarh (73), Sonipat. Pan No.Aadcr1837J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

…appeal against the assessment could not disentitle the assessee to seek rectification once patent error of law appeared on face of the record.” [Para 27] “The aforesaid principle has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Suhrid Geigy Ltd. v. CST [1999] 237 ITR 834 wherein one of us (Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.R. Dave) was a party to the decision. It is laid down in the said decisions that: "Section 13 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 provides for rectification of mistake apparent from the record. A point which is debatable cannot be termed a mistake. But when the point is covered by a decision of the…

VAKS MULTIPLE SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3255/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Vaks Multiple Service Vs Acit Plot No. 58-59, D L F Main Cgo Complex, Nh 4, Market, Sector-11, Faridabad, Nit, Faridabad, Haryana Haryana Pan: Aaecv4819M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ankit Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ For Short), New Delhi Dated 17/03/2025 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2019-20 Having Gross Total Income Of Rs. 79,44,337/-. During The Processing Of Itr U/S. 143(1)(A), The Cpc Had Disallowed Rs. 33,02,357/- On Account Of Delay In Payment Of Employees Share Of Esi & Pf. Being Aggrieved With The Aforesaid Disallowance Of Rs. 33,02,357/-, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). The Cit (Nfac) Vide Order Vaks Multiple Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

…rendered by the superior Court, the same should also be recalled within the scope of Section 254(2). Though the Hon’ble Supreme Court had referred to a decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of SuhridGeigy Ltd vs. Commissioner of Surtax reported in (1999) 237 ITR 834 that if the point is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered prior or even subsequent to the order of rectification, it could be a mistake apparent from the record u/s. 254(2) and could be corrected by the Tribunal. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred this judgment and only held that if a judgment is…

DIPEN KUMARPAL PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. NFAC- DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1703/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. P.D. Chougule, DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(via)

…estion came up for consideration before the High Court 41. A similar question came up for consideration before the High Court of Gujarat in Suhrid Geigy Suhrid Geigy Limited v. Commissioner of Surtax, Gujarat Limited v. Commissioner of Surtax, Gujarat, (1999) 237 ITR 834 (Guj). It was held by the Division Bench of the High (1999) 237 ITR 834 (Guj). It was held by the Division Bench of the High (1999) 237 ITR 834 (Guj). It was held by the Division Bench of the High Court that if the point is covered by a decision of the Jurisdictional Court that if the point is covered by a decision of the Jurisdictional Court tha…

RAJEEV BISWAS vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

ITA/161/2018HC Calcutta22 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 22, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharyya, Adv. Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Swaralipi Sarkar, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5.1.2018 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata In Miscellaneous Application No. 205/Kol/2017 Affirming The Order Dated 27Th September, 2017 Passed In Income Tax Appeal No. 1176/Kol/2017 By Which The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) –22 Kolkata, [Cit(A)] Dated 15Th March, 2017 Was Affirmed, Which Order Of The [Cit(A)] Arose Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Namely Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 2 (1), Kolkata Dated 28Th January, 2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Appeal Was Admitted On 3Rd December, 2018 To Decide The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “I. Whether The Subject Income Could Be Taken To Have Accrued In India Only For The Reason That It Was Shown In The Balance Sheet Of The Assessee ?

Section 10(6)(viii)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 260A

…O 135 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/161/2018 RAJEEV BISWAS VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA Date : SEPTEMBER 22, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharyya, Adv. Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Swaralipi Sarkar, Adv. …for appellant Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …for respondent The Court :- This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 5.1.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkat…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -I KOLKATA vs. M/S GKW LTD.

ITAT/161/2018HC Calcutta13 Dec 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 22, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharyya, Adv. Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Swaralipi Sarkar, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5.1.2018 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata In Miscellaneous Application No. 205/Kol/2017 Affirming The Order Dated 27Th September, 2017 Passed In Income Tax Appeal No. 1176/Kol/2017 By Which The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) –22 Kolkata, [Cit(A)] Dated 15Th March, 2017 Was Affirmed, Which Order Of The [Cit(A)] Arose Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Namely Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 2 (1), Kolkata Dated 28Th January, 2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Appeal Was Admitted On 3Rd December, 2018 To Decide The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “I. Whether The Subject Income Could Be Taken To Have Accrued In India Only For The Reason That It Was Shown In The Balance Sheet Of The Assessee ?

Section 10(6)(viii)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 260A

…O 135 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/161/2018 RAJEEV BISWAS VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA Date : SEPTEMBER 22, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharyya, Adv. Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Swaralipi Sarkar, Adv. …for appellant Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …for respondent The Court :- This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 5.1.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkat…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. LATE SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1696/BANG/2016[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Respondent: Miss Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…mistake can be said to be a "mistake apparent from the record" which could be rectified under Section 254(2). 41. A similar question came up for consideration before the High Court of Gujarat in Suhrid Geigy Limited v. Commissioner of Surtax, Gujarat, (1999) 237 ITR 834 (Guj). It was held by the Division Bench of the High Court that if the point is covered by a decision of the Jurisdictional Court rendered prior or even subsequent to the order of rectification, it could be said to be "mistake apparent from the record" 10 ITA No.1693/Bang/2016 &Ors. Late Sri.A.S.Narayana Raju &Anr. under Section 254 (2) of the A…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. LATE SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1695/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Respondent: Miss Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…mistake can be said to be a "mistake apparent from the record" which could be rectified under Section 254(2). 41. A similar question came up for consideration before the High Court of Gujarat in Suhrid Geigy Limited v. Commissioner of Surtax, Gujarat, (1999) 237 ITR 834 (Guj). It was held by the Division Bench of the High Court that if the point is covered by a decision of the Jurisdictional Court rendered prior or even subsequent to the order of rectification, it could be said to be "mistake apparent from the record" 10 ITA No.1693/Bang/2016 &Ors. Late Sri.A.S.Narayana Raju &Anr. under Section 254 (2) of the A…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. LATE SRI.A.S.NARAYANA RAJU, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1694/BANG/2016[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Respondent: Miss Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…mistake can be said to be a "mistake apparent from the record" which could be rectified under Section 254(2). 41. A similar question came up for consideration before the High Court of Gujarat in Suhrid Geigy Limited v. Commissioner of Surtax, Gujarat, (1999) 237 ITR 834 (Guj). It was held by the Division Bench of the High Court that if the point is covered by a decision of the Jurisdictional Court rendered prior or even subsequent to the order of rectification, it could be said to be "mistake apparent from the record" 10 ITA No.1693/Bang/2016 &Ors. Late Sri.A.S.Narayana Raju &Anr. under Section 254 (2) of the A…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. LATE SRI.A.S.NARAYANA RAJU, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1693/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Respondent: Miss Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…mistake can be said to be a "mistake apparent from the record" which could be rectified under Section 254(2). 41. A similar question came up for consideration before the High Court of Gujarat in Suhrid Geigy Limited v. Commissioner of Surtax, Gujarat, (1999) 237 ITR 834 (Guj). It was held by the Division Bench of the High Court that if the point is covered by a decision of the Jurisdictional Court rendered prior or even subsequent to the order of rectification, it could be said to be "mistake apparent from the record" 10 ITA No.1693/Bang/2016 &Ors. Late Sri.A.S.Narayana Raju &Anr. under Section 254 (2) of the A…

GRISHMA SECURITIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7130/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kishnadwala-ARFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Vispute-DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254(1)

…d to be a "mistake apparent from the record" which could be rectified under section 254(2). 7130/M/14 –Grishma Securities 41. A similar question came up for consideration before the High Court of Gujarat in Suhrid Geigy Ltd. v. Commissioner of Surtax [1999] 237 ITR 834. It was held by the Division Bench of the High Court that if the point is covered by a decision of the jurisdictional court rendered prior or even subsequent to the order of rectification, it could be said to be a "mistake apparent from the record" under section 254(2) of the Act and could be corrected by the Tribunal. 42. In our judgment, it is…

EMCEE PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 253/KOL/2016[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jun 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 264

…I.T.A. No. 253/KOL./2016 Assessment year: 2000-2001 Page 1 of 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘B(SMC)’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 253 /KOL/ 2016 Assessment Year: 2000-2001 Emcee Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Limited,....................................Appellant DA-201, Ground Floor, Sector-1, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 064 [PAN : AAACE 5456 F] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,.................................Respondent Circle-11, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 069 Appearances by: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCA, for th…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupati. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Proddatur

In the result, the L.A.A.S

ITTA/484/2012HC Telangana19 Nov 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 18

…take can be said to be a ‘mistake apparent from the record”, which could be rectified under Section 254(2). A similar question came up for consideration before the High Court of Gujarat in Suhrid Geigy Limited v. Commissioner of Surtax, Gujarat, (1999) 237 ITR 834 (Guj). It was held by the Division Bench of the High Court that if the point is covered by a decision of the Jurisdictional Court rendered prior or even subsequent to the order of rectification, it could be said to be "mistake apparent from the record" under Section 254 (2) of the Act and could be corrected by the Tribunal. In our judgment, it i…

ASSISTANT COMMNR., INCOME TAX, RAJKOT vs. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD

C.A. No.-001171-001171 - 2004Supreme Court15 Sept 2008
Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 154Section 25Section 254

…r allowing the application, the Tribunal relied upon a decision rendered by the High Court of Gujarat in Hiralal Bhagwati v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 246 ITR 188 as also in Suhrid Geigy Limited v. Commissioner of Surtax, Gujarat, (1999) 237 ITR 834. 7. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal in Miscellaneous Application, rectifying a ‘mistake apparent from record’ and recalling its earlier order, the Revenue filed a writ petition which, as stated above, was 5 dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the present appeal. 8. On December 19, 2003, notice was issued by…