Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › ACIT vs. GTL Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

ACIT vs. GTL Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 15, 2010 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (gtl_retrospective_amendment_apparent_mistake.pdf)

Retrospective amendment after passing order does not lead to “apparent mistake”

Following HCL Comnet 305 ITR 409 (SC), the Tribunal took the view vide order dated 17.3.2009 that provision for bad debts debited to the P&L A/c could not be added to the “book profits” u/s 115JA. To supercede HCL Comnet, clause (g) was inserted in the Explanation to s. 115JA by the F. A. 2009 w.r.e.f 1.4.1998. The amendment received the assent of the President on 19.8.2009, after the order of the Tribunal was passed. The department filed a MA contending that in view of the said retrospective amendment, there was a “mistake apparent from the record”. HELD dismissing the application:

As per the law laid down in Sudhir Mehta 265 ITR 548 (Bom), where an order is passed as per the prevailing law, a retrospective amendment which comes into force after the date of the passing of the order does not show any mistake in the order.

See Also: ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch 305 ITR 227 (SC) (order passed contrary to even a subsequent judgement of the apex court/ jurisdictional High Court reflects an “apparent mistake”), Venkatachalam v. Bombay Dyeing 34 ITR 143 and S.A.L. Narayan Row 57 ITR 149 (question whether there is an apparent mistake has to be seen as per the amended law) & General Electric 112 ITR 246 (Cal) (retrospective law shows a mistake which may not be “apparent”).

Related Judgements

  1. ACIT vs. Bright Star Investment (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Of the two formulas available, the formula adopted by the assessee, i.e. of taking the difference between the indexed book value on the date of conversion and the sale proceeds as long-term capital gains, being beneficial to the assessee, should be adopted. No part of the gains can be…
  2. UPS Freight Services vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    As the 3rd Provio to s. 245 (2A) {restricting the right of the Tribunal to grant stay beyond 365 days even if the delay is not attributable to the assessee} comes into force on 1.10.2008, there is no bar on the Tribunal before that date to grant stay beyond…
  3. Mittal Tower Premises vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Non-occupancy charges received by a commercial society from its members, even though in excess of 10% of the maintenance charges, are exempt on the principles of mutuality. Read more ›
  4. ACIT vs. Bhaumik Colour (ITAT Bombay – Special Bench) 

    The expression shareholder in s. 2 (22) (e) refers to both a registered shareholder and beneficial shareholder. If a person is a registered shareholder but not the beneficial shareholder than the provisions of s. 2(22) (e) will not apply. Similarly if a person is a beneficial shareholder but not…
  5. G.K. Ramamurthy vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    S. 10(38) was inserted with the object to grant exemption to LTCG as tax has already been levied on a different footing (STT). The revenue’s contention that long term capital loss should be adjusted against exempt LTCG will be contrary to the intention, object and purpose of enacting s….