| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
June 12, 2011 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Tribunal entitled to do “own research” & rely on non-cited cases
The assessee’s appeal on disallowance made on account of short term capital loss and long term capital loss was decided by the Tribunal by relying on a decision of the Mumbai Bench in Macintosh Finance Estates Ltd vs ACIT which had not been cited by either party to the appeal. The assessee filed a MA u/s 254(2) claiming that reliance on a non-cited judgement was an apparent mistake which was dismissed by the Tribunal. On a Writ Petition filed by the assessee, HELD dismissing the Petition:
Reliance and reference to reasons stated in another decision cannot be regarded as a mistake apparent from the record. It is not unusual or abnormal for Judges or adjudicators to refer and rely upon judgments/decisions after making their own research.
Related Posts:
- Paradigm Geophysical Pty Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court) If the nature of services rendered have a proximate nexus with the extraction of production of mineral oils, it would be outside the ambit of the definition of FTS. In the instant case, since the nature of services rendered by the Petitioner gets excluded from the definition of “FTS”, in…
- Experion Developers Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Whilst it is the settled position in law that the sanctioning authority is required to apply his mind and the grant of approval must not be made in a mechanical manner, however, as noted by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Prem Chand Shaw (Jaiswal) v Assistant…
- Indus Towers Ltd vs. ACIT (Delhi High Court) Considering the fact that the petitioner has invoked the discretionary extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner was expected to approach this Court with clean hands, which, unfortunately, we find is completely lacking in the present case. We are, therefore, not inclined to exercise our discretionary writ jurisdiction in…
- PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (Delhi High Court) The startling spike in the share price and other factors may be enough to show circumstances that might create suspicion; however the Court has to decide an issue on the basis of evidence and proof, and not on suspicion alone. The theory of human behavior and preponderance of probabilities cannot…
- PCIT (Central) - 3 vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) (Delhi High Court) Now, coming to the aspect viz the invocation of section 153A on the basis of the statement recorded in search action against a third person. We may note that the AO has used this statement on oath recorded in the course of search conducted in the case of a third…
- New Delhi Television Ltd vs. DCIT (Supreme Court) In our view the assessee disclosed all the primary facts necessary for assessment of its case to the assessing officer. What the revenue urges is that the assessee did not make a full and true disclosure of certain other facts. We are of the view that the assessee had disclosed…
Leave a Reply