1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>ITAT Pune: Rectification Application Allowed for Mistake in Order</h1> The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune allowed the application for rectification of a mistake apparent from the record in the Tribunal's order dated 11.6.2010. ... - Issues involved: Rectification of mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal u/s 254(2) of the IT Act 1961.Summary:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune involved the consideration of an application for rectification of a mistake apparent from the record in the Tribunal's order dated 11.6.2010. The Applicant contended that Ground No. 3 raised in the appeal had not been adjudicated by the Tribunal, leading to an error in the order. The Applicant argued that serious injustice, prejudice, and harassment had been caused due to the first appellate order ignoring binding decisions, and requested a substantial cost u/s. 254(2B) of the IT Act 1961. The Respondent opposed the application, stating that the Tribunal had already decided the issues in Ground Nos. 1 & 2 in favor of the assessee, and allowing the application would amount to a review not permitted under Section 254(2) of the Act.Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal found merit in the contention that Ground No. 3 had not been adjudicated in the previous order, leading to an apparent mistake. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed the Registry to fix the appeal for hearing on the issue raised in Ground No. 3 for rectification of the order dated 11.6.2010. As a result, the application was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open Court on 9th February 2011.