Mepco Industries Ltd. v. CIT

319 ITR 208Supreme Court of India2009#2316 most cited

What is Mepco Industries Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A mistake rectifiable under Section 154 must be obvious and apparent from the record, not one that requires a long process of reasoning or constitutes a mere change of opinion.

50

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mepco Industries Ltd. v. CIT · Section 154 · rectification of mistake · mistake apparent from record · change of opinion · obvious error · patent mistake · long drawn process of reasoning · 319 ITR 208

Also reported as

185 Taxmann 409

Sections most often in play

Section 154Section 250Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 10(20A)Section 11Section 13(3)Section 2(15)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 17(1)section 10(20a)section 4(2)section 10(20)section 58section 12aa(3)section 60section 116section 11(5)mistake apparent from recordsection 55section 13(3)

Judgments citing Mepco Industries Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT 4(2), Mumbai vs. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 5675/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5675/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Harinagar Sugar Mills बनाम/ Tax - 4(2), Ltd., V. Room No. 642, 6 Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Centre No. 1, M.K. Road, 10 Th Floor, Mumbai 400 020. Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai- 400 005. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaach2831H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Desai
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “H” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5675/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Dy. Commissioner of Income M/s Harinagar Sugar Mills बनाम/ Tax - 4(2), Ltd., v. Room No. 642, 6 th floor, World Trade Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Centre No. 1, M.K. Road, 10 th Floor, Mumbai 400 020. Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai- 400 005. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAACH2831H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue by Shri Amit Kumar Singh,DR Assessee b…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6068/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N K Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishna CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 43(1)Section 43(6)Section 45(7)

…assessment proceedings. In the circumstances, the claim for deduction of depreciation cannot be withdrawn by exercising power under Section 154 of the Act based on the change of opinion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mepco Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT, 319 ITR 208, held that the right to rectify the mistakes under Section 154 of the Act cannot be invoked in the case of change of opinion. A rectifiable mistake is a mistake which is obvious and patent and not something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or where two opinions are 5 I.T.A.Nos.5866 &6068/Del/2013 possible. Further…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5866/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N K Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishna CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 43(1)Section 43(6)Section 45(7)

…assessment proceedings. In the circumstances, the claim for deduction of depreciation cannot be withdrawn by exercising power under Section 154 of the Act based on the change of opinion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mepco Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT, 319 ITR 208, held that the right to rectify the mistakes under Section 154 of the Act cannot be invoked in the case of change of opinion. A rectifiable mistake is a mistake which is obvious and patent and not something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or where two opinions are 5 I.T.A.Nos.5866 &6068/Del/2013 possible. Further…

The State Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1281/KOL/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06

Section 143(3)

…not tenable. There is no straight jacket principle to distinguish a capital receipt from a revenue receipt. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. This view is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mepco Industries 319 ITR 208 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble’ble Apex Court held that in each case one has to determine the nature of subsidy based on the its own facts. We find that in the instant case the Government being hundred percent shareholder of the assessee company has given grant in aid for holding the employment. The grant-in-aid was given specifically to the assessee c…

Insilco Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2586/DEL/2011[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2016AY 1993-94

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. V.P. Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 220Section 220(2)Section 244ASection 251

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2586/Del./2011 Asstt. Year : 1993-94 Insilco Ltd., vs. A.C.I.T., 11(1), 1 & 2, 12th Floor, German Centre, New Delhi. For Industry & Trade, Bulding No. 9, Tower-B, DLF Cyber City, Phase-III, Gurgaon0122002 (Haryana) [PAN: AAACI 1203N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. V.P. Gupta, Advocate & Sh. Anubhav Kumar, Advocate Respondent by : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 18.02.2016 Date of pronouncement : 07.03.2016 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, Accountant…

Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 21/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…assessment proceedings. In the circumstances, the claim for deduction of depreciation cannot be withdrawn by exercising power under Section 154 of the Act based on the change of opinion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mepco Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT, 319 ITR 208, held that the right to rectify the mistakes under Section 154 of the Act cannot be invoked in the case of change of opinion. A rectifiable mistake is a mistake which is obvious and patent and not something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or where two opinions are possible. Further, in our opinion, the issue at wh…

ACIT, Haridwar vs. M/S. Kirby Building Systems India (Uttaranchal) Pvt. Ltd., Haridwar

Appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s cross objection stands allowed

ITA 923/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 80I

…"attributable to". In other words, by using the expression "derived from", Parliament intended to cover sources not beyond the first degree.” 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a subsequent decision, in the case of Mepco Industries Ltd., Vs. CIT reported in (2009) 319 ITR 208, held that the nature of a subsidy in each case, is separate and distinct and, therefore, the nature of subsidy has to be examined in each case independently. Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under; “Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. [1997] 228 ITR 253 (SC) was a case which dealt with production subsidy, Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 IT…

ACIT, Haridwar vs. M/S. Kirby Building Systems India (Uttaranchal) Pvt. Ltd., Haridwar

Appeal stands dismissed and the assessee’s cross objection stands allowed

ITA 5607/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 80I

…"attributable to". In other words, by using the expression "derived from", Parliament intended to cover sources not beyond the first degree.” 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a subsequent decision, in the case of Mepco Industries Ltd., Vs. CIT reported in (2009) 319 ITR 208, held that the nature of a subsidy ineach case, is separate and distinct and, therefore, the nature of subsidy has to be examined in each case independently. Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under; “Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. [1997] 228 ITR 253 (SC) was a case which dealt with production subsidy, Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd

ITTA/330/2013HC Telangana13 Aug 2013

Commissioner Ofincome Tax vs. Jindal Stainless Limited

ITA/1500/2010HC Delhi06 Oct 2010
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 260A

…oint of law nor failure to apply the correct law to a set of facts can be corrected by way of a rectification under Section 154 of the Act. In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of MEPCO Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another (2009) 319 ITR 208 (SC) has held that the right to rectify mistakes under Section 154 of the Act cannot be invoked in case of change of opinion. A rectifiable mistake is a mistake which is obvious and not something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or where two opinions are possible. 2010:DHC:4995-DB 9. Consequently, the Tri…