1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court emphasizes separate assessment years, rejects rectification based on disagreement with Tribunal decision.</h1> The court dismissed the application under section 254(2) regarding the allowability of commission, emphasizing the need to consider each assessment year ... Application For Reference, Question Of Law, Rectification Of Mistakes Issues involved: The judgment deals with the rejection of an application under section 254(2) regarding the allowability of commission, the correctness of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision, and the disallowance of commission for a specific individual for the assessment year 1982-83.Regarding the first issue: The petitioner sought reference on whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the application under section 254(2) for the allowability of commission to Shri Chander Mohan, which had been allowed except for specific years. The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 254(2) as it found no mistake apparent on the record calling for rectification, emphasizing that each assessment year must be considered separately.Regarding the second issue: The Tribunal's decision not to follow orders from a previous year for the assessment year 1983-84, despite similar facts, was challenged. The judgment highlighted that the mere disagreement with the Tribunal's conclusion does not warrant an application under section 254(2) unless there is a clear mistake on the face of the record.Regarding the third issue: The Tribunal's disallowance of commission to Shri Chander Mohan for the assessment year 1982-83 was contested. The judgment emphasized that the Tribunal's decision was based on the absence of a mistake warranting rectification, and the allowance of a similar application for a different year does not automatically justify the same for the current assessment year.In conclusion, the court dismissed the application, stating that no question of law arose in this case, and emphasized the importance of challenging original orders through the appropriate legal procedures rather than seeking rectification based on disagreement with the Tribunal's conclusions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
