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

Home › All Judgements › ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch SE (Supreme Court)

ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch SE (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 15, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Where the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by holding that it was not entitled to exemption u/s 11 and subsequently, on an application filed by the assessee u/s 254(2), recalled the said order on the ground that it had not considered a judgement of the jurisdictional High Court and that there was a mistake apparent from the record and the question arose whether such recall was justified, HELD, upholding the order of the Tribunal:

(i) A mistake apparent from the record is one that is patent, manifest and self-evident and which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it;

(ii) The non-consideration of a decision of jurisdictional Court or of the Supreme Court is a “mistake apparent from the record” irrespective of whether such decision was rendered prior or subsequent to the rectification;

(iiii) A judicial decision acts retrospectively because it is not the function of the Court to pronounce a `new rule’ but to maintain and expound the `old one’. Judges do not make law; they only discover or find the correct law. A subsequent decision which alters the earlier one has to be applied retrospectively;

(iv) Rectification of an order stems from the fundamental principle that justice is above all. It is exercised to remove the error and to disturb the finality.

See also: Honda Siel vs. CIT (SC) & Deva Metal Products (SC).

Related Posts:

  • ACIT vs. Marico Ltd (Supreme Court) The non-rejection of the explanation in the Assessment Order would amount to the Assessing Officer accepting the view of the assessee, thus taking a view/forming an opinion. Therefore, in these circumstances, the reasons in support of the impugned notice proceed on a mere change of opinion and therefore would be…
  • Skylight Hospitality LLP vs. ACIT (Supreme Court) Object and purpose behind Section 292-B is to ensure that technical pleas on the ground of mistake, defect or omission should not invalidate the assessment proceedings, when no confusion or prejudice is caused due to nonobservance of technical formalities. The object and purpose of this Section is to ensure that…
  • ACIT vs. Bharat V. Patel (Supreme Court) The word “Perquisite” in common parlance may be defined as any perk or benefit attached to an employee or position besides salary or remuneration. Broadly speaking, these are usually noncash benefits given by an employer to an employee in addition to entitled salary or remuneration. It may be said that…
  • Vodafone Idea Ltd vs. ACIT (Supreme Court) In the premises, we hold that in respect of Assessment Years ending on 31st March 2017 or before, if a notice was issued in conformity with the requirements stated in sub-section (2) of Section 143 of the Act, it shall not be necessary to process the refund under subsection (1)…
  • Dalmia Power Limited vs. ACIT (Supreme Court) The more advisable course from the point of view of the Revenue would be to make one assessment on the Transferee Company taking into account the income of both of Transferor or Transferee Companies and also to make separate protective assessments on both the Transferor and Transferee Companies separately. There…
  • The Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd vs. ACIT (Supreme Court) It is pointed out by the Assessing Officer that the assessee is catering to two distinct categories of people. The first category is that of resident members or ordinary members. There may not be any difficulty as far as this category is concerned. However, the assessee had carved out another…

Related Judgements

  1. M/s Ahmed Anis vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Where the assessee had led satisfactory evidence that its business was that of a commission agent and not a trader and 10-11 years had passed, the assessee could not be held responsible for non-appearance of five traders to whom summons … M/s Ahmed Anis vs. CIT (Supreme…
  2. State of H.P. vs. Sardara Singh (Supreme Court) 

    Where the High Court summarily dismissed an application without giving any reasons HELD that this manner of dealing left a lot to be desired. It was imperative to record reasons and the failure to do so rendered the order unsustainable. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the…
  3. Agricultural PMC vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee is not a “local authority” after insertion of the Explanation in Section 10(20) vide Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1.4.2003 and is consequently not entitled to the benefit under Section 10 of the 1961 Act.
    Read more ›
  4. CIT vs. Gold Coin Health (Supreme Court – Larger Bench) 

    the amendment to Explanation 4 to s. 271(1)(c), though made with effect from 1st April 2003, should be treated as clarificatory and retrospective.Read more ›
  5. Kvaerner John Brown vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Jurisdiction u/s S. 143(1)(a) and 143 (1A) is confined to making “prima facie” adjustments. When there are conflicting judgments on interpretation of Section 80-O, it is not permissible to make “prima facie” adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) and consequently additional tax u/s 143(1A) is not payable.
    Read more ›