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
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(1), Room No. 312, C.R. Building New Delhi.
 Smt. Ritu Malik T-236, DB Gupta Road, Phara Ganj, New Delhi – 110055 vs. ITO, Ward – 62 (5) New Delhi
 Fluor Daniel India Pvt. Ltd. B 9, LGF Green Park (Main) New Delhi 110 016 vs. ACIT Circle 9(1), Room No.194 C.R.building I.P.Estate New Delhi
 DCIT, Circle-2, Meerut. vs. Reeta Singhal, A-312, Prahlad Vatika, Khair Nagar, Meerut.
 Contata Solutions Pvt.Ltd. A-16/9, Vasant Vihar New Delhi 110 057 vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Room No.376A Central Revenue Building I.P.Estate New Delhi 110 002
 Late Sh. D. K. Jain Through Legal Hier Mrs. Usha Jain D-19, Nizamuddin East New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-32(1) New Delhi.
 Shri Neeraj Puri 74-C, Rajpur Road Dehradun Vs. The Pr. C.I.T Dehradun
 Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Hari Kishan Hingo Kheri, Kandela D- Shamli vs. ITO, Ward – 1 (4) Shamli
 Satish Kumar, Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi – 49 Vs. Ito, Ward 2(3), Faridabad
 Income-tax Officer, Ward 6(1), New Delhi vs. Magic Software Pvt. Ltd., 9th Floor, Tower C, Tech Bouleward, Plot No. 6, Sector 127, Noida.
 Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax

Viraj Impo Expo Ltd. 10, Imperial Chambers, Wilson Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 038 Vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle-18 & 19, Mumbai
December, 16th 2014

        ,        ,                                     

                           ./MA No. 342/Mum/2014
                        (Arising out of ITA No. 457/Mum/2008)
                    (   / Assessment Year: 2004-05)
Viraj Impo Expo Ltd.                  Dy. CIT,
10, Imperial Chambers,         / Central Circle-18 & 19, Mumbai
Wilson Road, Ballard Estate,    Vs.
Mumbai-400 038
     . /  . /PAN/GIR No. AAACV 1939 L
    (Applicant)     :           (Respondent)

                           ./MA No. 343/Mum/2014
                        (Arising out of ITA No. 458/Mum/2008)
                    (   / Assessment Year: 2003-04)
Viraj Forgings Ltd.            / Dy. CIT,
Mumbai-400 038                        Central Circle-18 & 19, Mumbai
     . /  . /PAN/GIR No. AAACV 1901 E
    (Applicant)     :           (Respondent)
                           ./MA No. 345/Mum/2014
                        (Arising out of ITA No. 496/Mum/2008)
                      (   / Assessment Years: 2003-04)
Viraj Profiles Ltd.               / Dy. CIT,
Mumbai-400 038                          Central Circle-18 & 19, Mumbai
     . /  . /PAN/GIR No. AAACV 1940 N
    (Applicant)     :           (Respondent)

                          Applicants by    :    Ms. Bhumika Vora
                         Respondent by     :    Shri Asghar Zain
                                                              MA Nos. 342, 343 & 345/M/2014
                                                                (A.Ys.2003-04 & 2004-05)

                          /                     :   12.12.2014
                    Date of Hearing
                                                :   12.12.2014
              Date of Pronouncement

                                     / O R D E R
Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.:
       This is a set of three Miscellaneous Applications by three Assessee-appellants,
arising out of the common Order u/s. 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act'
hereinafter) by the Tribunal dated 12.01.2011 in the captioned appeals for assessment
years (A.Ys.) 2003-04 & 2004-05.

2.     The assessee/s has now moved an application stating that its' claim for deduction
u/s.80-HHC was not accepted by the tribunal per the impugned order following the
decision by the hon'ble jurisdictional high court in the case of CIT vs. Kalpataru Colours
& Chemicals [2010] 328 ITR 451 (Bom) [192 Taxman 435]. The said decision has since
been reversed by the apex court vide its judgment in the case of Topman Exports vs. CIT
[2012] 342 ITR 49 (SC) [67 DTR 185]. In view of the same, the tribunals' order bears a
mistake apparent from the record, which is therefore prayed for being rectified u/s.254(2)
of the Act.

3.     We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record.
       Even as held by the apex court in the case of Asst. CIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock
Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC), as well as by the higher courts, as in the case of
CIT vs. Smt. Aruna Luthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 (P & H)(FB) and B.V.K. Sheshavataram v.
CIT [1994] 210 ITR 633 (AP), even a subsequent decision by the apex court or the
jurisdictional high court would render the decision of the subordinate authority as
mistaken, which could thus be `rectified' in law. The premise of the said decisions is that
a `mistake' can be said to have occurred where the decision being followed or otherwise
adopted by the impugned order is subsequently reversed or held as bad in law by a higher
                                                               MA Nos. 342, 343 & 345/M/2014
                                                                 (A.Ys.2003-04 & 2004-05)

binding authority. A decision on a point of law would always relate back to the date of its
enactment, i.e., when it comes in force.
       The impugned order was passed by the tribunal on 12.01.2011 and the assessee's
instant application/s has been moved with the tribunal on 15.07.2014, so that it is within
the time period of four years from the date of order u/s.254(1). Accordingly, we have no
hesitation in, conceding the said `mistake', direct, in modification of the findings by the
tribunal per para 3 of its order, the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee deduction
u/s.80-HHC of the Act for the relevant year/s following the decision by the apex court in
the case of Topman Exports (supra). This order shall be read in conjunction with the
impugned order. We decide accordingly.

4.     In the result, the assessee's miscellaneous applications are allowed.

               Order pronounced in the open court on December 12, 2014

          Sd/-                                         Sd/-
      (Joginder Singh)                              (Sanjay Arora)
         / Judicial Member                            / Accountant Member
 Mumbai;  Dated : 12.12.2014
. ../Roshani, Sr. PS
         /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.  / The Applicant
2.  / The Respondent
3.     () / The CIT(A)
4.      / CIT ­ concerned
5.                ,     ,  / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6.     / Guard File
                                                     / BY ORDER,

                                              /  (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
                                          ,  / ITAT, Mumbai
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Mission

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