S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Jurisdiction – Bombay High Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain appeals in respect of order passed by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal, notwithstanding the fact that an order was passed under S.127 transferring the assessee’s case from AO at Bangalore to AO at Pune. [S. 116, 124, 127]

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court–High Court cannot re-examine the same evidence and reach a different factual conclusion than the lower authorities. [S. 40A(3)]

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court–Delay in filing appeal on account of difference in opinion between two officers and the time taken in obtaining legal opinion was condoned on payment of cost.

S. 260A : Appeal–High Court–Tribunal order passed after High Court remanded the matter–Remedy against that order is by filing an appeal under S. 260A and not by way of SLP to Supreme Court. [S. 10A(6), 260A, 261]

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record–Duties-Dismissal of the appeal for non prosecution has resulted in failure of justice–Order requires to be rectified – Delay of 497 days in filing the miscellaneous application was condoned, though the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay beyond six months–Cost of Rs. 5000 is imposed on the assessee. [S.254(1) Art, 226, 227]

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record–Grounds raised and not given up remains un decided-Tribunal to either adjudicate on or to direct the AO to consider the additional evidence-Judgement of the Tribunal gives rise to an error on the face of the record, which is rectifiable. [S. 254(1)]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal- Delay of 420 days in filing appeal due to subsequent decision of the Supreme Court is a valid ground for condonation of delay -An order can be said to suffer from a “mistake apparent from the record” if it contrary to a subsequent judgement of the Supreme Court. Courts do not make any new law; they only clarify the legal position which was earlier not correctly understood. Such legal position clarified by Courts has retrospective effect as the law was always the same. [S. 80HHC, 154]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal– Suggested to constitute a tax advisory cell-Suggestions on how to remove hindrances to India’s goal to become a $5 Trillion economy. Cash credits–Cash sales–Vouchers of day to day was not examined– Matter remanded for verification. [S. 68, 115BBE]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal–Duties–Cross objection- Limitation -Delay of 1965 days condoned Order passed without following the mandate laid down u/s. 144C of the Act is quashed–Penalty levied was also quashed. [S. 92CA, 144C,, 201(1) 201(IA), 253(1), 254 (1) ITAT ,R. 11]

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal–Duties–When any concession is made by the Authorised representatives on behalf of the assessee the Tribunal should take an affidavit from asssessee and on counsel on behalf of assessee or atleast a written endorsement made on record of case duly signed by them – Court also stated that the order to be circulated to all the members of the ITAT and also new members to be appointed-Addition confirmed by the Tribunal u/s 2 (22)(e ) of the Act is remanded to the Assessing Officer . [ S.2(22)(e) ]