9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed proposition of law that in fiscal litigation, each assessment year is separate and independent. It has been affirmed in Goslino Mario Case [1999 (4) TMI 6 - SC ORDER] that a cardinal principle of the Tax law is that the law to be applied is that which is in force in the relevant assessment year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implication. In Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. V CIT [1979 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] also this proposition law is recognized. We can observe that the coordinate Bench while passing the order has taken into consideration the judgments in favour of assessee. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Vegetable Products Ltd[1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] has held for that if two reasona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IC before the prescribed due dates which was sustained by the ld.CIT(A). However, the coordinate Bench, by order dated 10.08.2022 had given relief to the assessee by following the judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd., 321 ITR 508 and PCIT vs. Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.983/2018, order dated 10.09.2018, holding that the amendment in section 36(1)(va) and section 43B of the Act effected by the Finance Act, 2021 are applicable prospectively and not retrospectively. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 12.10.2022 in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that the employees contribution of ESI and PF have to be deposited before the due date under the respectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nefited due to one favorable view then, due to subsequent judgment reversing that view, cannot be said to be a mistake apparent from record, requiring exercise of powers u/s 254(2) of the Act. 6. Even otherwise, after the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2022) 440 ITR 1 (SC), the powers u/s 254(2) being recognized as akin to power of Review under order XLVII, Rule 1 CPC, the same restricts the scope of review as it is only mistake apparent from record which can be rectified and, according to the requirement of the nature of rectification, the order may be recalled or re-heard. The Explanation attached to the order XLVII Rule 1 CPC specifically provides that merely because of reversal or m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
