Omega Sports & Radio Works v. CIT

134 ITR 28High Court1982#4562 most cited

What is Omega Sports & Radio Works v. CIT authority for?

An issue already concluded by the jurisdictional High Court is not debatable and cannot be rectified under section 154.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Omega Sports & Radio Works v. CIT · 134 ITR 28 · section 154 · rectification · debatable issue · jurisdictional High Court · concluded issue

Sections most often in play

Section 154Section 10(20A)Section 11Section 13(3)Section 2(15)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 10(20a)section 4(2)section 10(20)section 58section 12aa(3)section 60section 11(5)section 55section 13(3)section 13(1)(c)cancellation of registrationsection 11(1)(a)

Judgments citing Omega Sports & Radio Works v. CIT

J V Holdings Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1337/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. J. V. Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 1St Floor, Embassy Point, Income-Tax, 150 Infantry Road, Circle – 4[1][1], Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan : Aabcj 9763 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Seetharam, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Nandhini Das, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2018

For Appellant: Shri. Seetharam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Nandhini Das, Addl. CIT
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2012-13 M/s. J. V. Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of 1st Floor, Embassy Point, Income-tax, 150 Infantry Road, Circle – 4[1][1], Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. PAN : AABCJ 9763 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Seetharam, CA Revenue by : Smt. Nandhini Das, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 20.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 13.12.2018 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order o…

Asst CIT Cir 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ask Investment Managers P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 534/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

Section 115JSection 14A

…ITR 839 (P&H), observing as under: “We have carefully examined the records and have heard learned counsel representing the parties. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in Omega Sports and Radio Works’ case [1982] 134 ITR 28, as also the decision of this court in Mohan Lal Kansal’s case [1978] 114 ITR 583. Following the decision in the two cases referred to above, we hold that it was not a case of divergence of opinion inasmuch as the opinion expressed by this court was binding upon the Tribunal.” 11.16. Therefore, in our considered opinion, no contrary view can be ta…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2286/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 154

…gh Courts have held that non- following of decision of the jurisdictional High Court is a rectifiable mistake. And issue conclude by the decision of jurisdictional High Court in not debatable in the state. The cases are- a. Omega Sports & Radio Works Vs. CIT, 134 ITR 28 (All.) b. CIT Vs. Premier Polymers (P) Ltd., 107 CTR (Cal) 310, and c. CIT Vs. Ramlal Babulal [1998] 148 CTR ( P & H ) 643 (iv) In the case of K.R. Alagappan Vs. ACIT [2011] 332 ITR 517 (Mad), the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that were the original order refusing exemption following the decision of jurisdictional High Court was passed and the H…

Metal Rolling Works Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-47, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1857/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 154Section 2(47)(v)Section 269U

…iates. He contended that the records of Mythri associates cannot be taken as assessee’s record. In support of this contention, the Ld A.R placed reliance on the following case laws, wherein the term “record” has been discussed:- (i) Gammon India Ltd. v. CIT [214 ITR 50, 56 (Bom)]: "The expression 'record' has not been defined in the Act. It has, therefore, to be construed and understood in the context in which it appears. Section 154 empowers the income-tax authorities to rectify mistakes which are 'apparent from the record'. 'Record' in such a case would mean record of the case comprising the entire proceedings…

ITO 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Technivision Ventures Ltd ( Formerly M.S, Solix Technologies Ltd), Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 5374/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.5374/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Ito 8(3)(2) बिधम/ Technivision Ventures Ltd.(Formerly M.S. Solix Vs. 201, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road. Technologies Ltd) 1486, C-12- Mumbai Pin:400020 136,522 Lane No.13 Street No.14 Tarnaka, Secunderabad Pin: 500017 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacca5943R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas Mundhe,(DR)For Respondent: K. Gopal
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 32(2)Section 44ASection 801Section 801A

…lack& Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. 248 ITR 72. It was further argued that as per decision of Hon'ble Punjab &Haryana high Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramlal Babulal 148 CTR 643 and the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Omega Sports & Radio Works 134 ITR 28, it was held that when the decision of jurisdictional high court is available, it is binding on the lower authorities to make rectification as per the decision of the court. From the perusal of the submissions and facts of the case, it is undisputed that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Cour…

Dilip Dharmsey Khatau, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5386/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Dilip Dharmsey Khatau, Ito 3(1)(1) 881/888, Atlanta, Scindia House, 1St बनाम/ 209, Nariman Point, Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabpk3729R "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Mrs. D.J. Jariwala (Ar) Mrs. Surbhi Sharma (Sr. राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Dr)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 90

…pugned claim in the return. The assessee had missed the bus and the same could not have been allowed to the assessee by way of rectification proceedings u/s 154. She relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gammon India Ltd. vs CIT 214 ITR 50 for the proposition that relief u/s 91(1) could not have been allowed to the assessee in the proceedings u/s 154, when requisite facts and documents to justify assessee’s claim were not part of records of the AO of the concerned year. It was also submitted by her that requisite facts with regard to stay of assessee in India and Singapore at differ…