Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2012 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2012 (3) TMI 540 - AT - Income Tax

Issues involved: Appeal against order allowing deduction u/s 10B, apparent errors in Tribunal's order regarding pending appeal and lease agreement, request for rectification of errors.

Deduction u/s 10B: The assessee filed a Misc. Application challenging the Tribunal's order allowing deduction u/s 10B for the assessment year 2003-04. The assessee contended that the Tribunal erred in disregarding the fact that the assessee had used machinery exceeding 20% of the total machinery value. The applicant sought rectification of errors in the Tribunal's order, highlighting discrepancies in statements made by the Id. DR and the disposal of the matter of Sakhi Raimondi Valves (India) Ltd. The applicant also emphasized the importance of a contention regarding the deduction under section 10B, which remained undecided. The Tribunal was requested to consider past decisions and rectify the apparent errors in the order.

Apparent Errors in Tribunal's Order: The Tribunal's order contained several apparent errors according to the assessee. The Tribunal's decision to send the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration was challenged by the assessee, citing previous decisions and agreements. The assessee argued that the Tribunal's decision was based on incorrect information regarding the pending appeal of Sakhi Raimondi Valves (India) Ltd. and the lease agreement between the parties. The assessee requested the rectification of these errors in the interest of justice. The Tribunal acknowledged the mistakes in the order and recalled it for further hearing, without the need for additional notices to the parties.

Conclusion: The Misc. Application filed by the assessee was allowed, and the Tribunal directed the Registry to post the matter for a hearing on a specified date. The decision was pronounced in the open Court, granting the relief sought by the assessee regarding the errors in the Tribunal's order.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates