SC: Tax tribunal must rectify mistake if it causes harm to assessee SC: Tax tribunal must rectify mistake if it causes harm to assessee

	Salient features of Finance Bill, 2008 by Ved Jain
	Salaried Class IT Refund information by Income Tax Deptt
	Budget 2008 snapshots by Naveen Gupta

« From the Courts »

SC modifies Advance Ruling on FBT and rules AAR with respect was not correct in its view in reading the words 'in India' after the word residence in sub-section (3)
Whether the amortization loss computed under Rule 9A is subject to or not subject to the provisions of section 80 and section 139 of the Income Tax Act
Powers of CIT - Cancellation of: Registration of charitable trust, Cancellation on mere search
Capital Gains: Enhanced compensation received - Year of taxability: Law applicable
Validity of: Exparte order - Condition precedent: Specific notice
Validity of: Re-assessment - Fresh facts received
Quite frequently, allegations of ‘benami-ship’ surface for content and refutation
Payment of noncompete fee by the Assessee was a business expenditure and not a capital expenditure
Claim of deduction on customs duty drawback under Section 80-IB of the Act- duty drawback is profit or gain derived from the business of an industrial undertaking
SC rules a person will become an ordinarily resident only if he has been residing in nine out of ten preceding years; and he has been in India for at least 730 days in the previous seven years
Full Bench of SC rules special audit of the accounts of the assessee-since an order under Section 142 (2A) does entail civil consequences, the rule audi alteram partem is required to be observed

« The issue of notice under s. 143 (2) is mandatory for block assessment proceedings

SC: CA firm cannot get tax deduction for depreciation of building »

SC: Tax tribunal must rectify mistake if it causes harm to assessee

December, 03rd 2007

The Supreme Court has asserted that if the income tax tribunal realises that it had made a mistake causing harm to an assessee or the revenue department, it has a duty to rectify it exercising its power under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

It thus overruled the Delhi High Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products which manufactures portable generators in collaboration with Honda Motor Company, Japan.

The company had claimed depreciation on account of fluctuation of the foreign exchange rate by enhancing the written down value of the assets. The tribunal did not allow it initially, but on pointing out an omission, it rectified the mistake. This was not permitted by the high court. The Supreme Court set aside the high court judgment observing that the tribunal was justified in rectifying the manifest error which caused prejudice to the company.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us