Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link:
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Popular Search: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: cpt :: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: empanelment :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT Audit :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: form 3cd :: due date for vat payment :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: articles on VAT and GST in India
« From the Courts »
 Samvardhana Motherson International Ltd. (Formerly Known As(M/s Samvardhana Motherson Finance Ltd.)a Vs. Assitant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 22(1) & Anr.
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-2 Vs. M/s Frontline Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
 Ram Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-64(2) & Anr.
 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 Vs. St Microelectronics Private Ltd.
  The Chamber Of Tax Consultants vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)
 M/s Ess Distribution (Mauritius) S.N.C.Et Compagnie Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -1(2)(2) International Taxation, New Delhi
 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ltu) Vs. ESPN Software India Ltd.
 Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,
 ITO vs. Gymkhana Club (ITAT Chandigarh)
 SRD Nutrients Private Limited vs. CCE (Supreme Court)
 The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Exemption Vs. The Fertilizers Association Of India

Taxpayers can ask ITAT to review its erroneous order: SC
December, 08th 2007
In a move that will bring cheers to tax payers, Supreme Court has ruled that those aggrieved by a blatantly erroneous or prejudiced order by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) can take the matter back to the Tribunal and get the error rectified. The apex court issued such an order in a case involving Honda Siel.

The ruling by a division bench consisting Justice SH Kapadia and Justice BS Reddy means that ITAT cannot hide behind the alibi that is has no power to review its own judgement.

The apex courts order is in total contrast to the Bombay High Courts 1993 ruling in the case of Ramesh Electric and Trading Co. In this order, it was held that an error of judgement, howsoever fundamental, cannot be rectified by the ITAT as it would amount to a review of its own decision and the tribunal had no powers to review its own order.

In the Honda Siel case, the ITAT Delhi bench ruled that unless actual payment is made for the increased foreign exchange liability, enhanced depreciation under section 43A was not allowable to the company. Honda Siel filed a petition before the ITAT reminding it that the Tribunal had not taken into account its own decision in the case of Samtel Colour, in which it had ruled in favour of the tax payer.

The company argued that ITAT cannot take a different stand on identical issues. The ITAT allowed Hondas petition and modified its order and held that despite the fact that increased exchange liability is not paid by Honda, depreciation on that basis was allowable as deduction.

The Delhi High Court had other views on the review by the ITAT. The High Court viewed the modification as a review of its own order and therefore quashed it.

The Supreme court, however, upheld the ITATs view. The apex court said the rule of precedent is an important aspect of legal certainty under the rule of law and that when prejudice results from an order attributable to Tribunals mistake, error or omission, then it is duty of the Tribunal to set it right.

Justice Kapadia, preferring fairness over technicalities, observed that atonement to the wronged party by the court or tribunal for the wrong committed by it has nothing to do with the concept of inherent power of review. The Supreme Court ruled that ITAT was justified in exercising its powers of rectifying the mistake when it was noticed that the order of another ITAT bench was not followed. The Supreme Court also ordered the interference of the Delhi High Court be vacated.
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Enterprise Resource Planning Solutions ERP Solutions Enterprise Resource Planning Software Solutions ERP Software Solutions Supply Chain Management Solutions SCM Solutions Supply Chain Management Software Solutions SCM Software Solutions Enterprise Resource Planning Solutions India ERP Solutions India Enterprise Resource Planning Software Solutions India ERP Software Solutions India Supply Chain Management Solutions India SCM Solutions India Supply Chain Management Software Solutions India SCM Software Solutions India

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions