Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1993 (3) TMI 84 - HC - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        High Court: Limitation for rectification under Income-tax Act starts from original assessment order, not rectification order. The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the period of limitation for rectification under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act should be ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                          High Court: Limitation for rectification under Income-tax Act starts from original assessment order, not rectification order.

                          The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the period of limitation for rectification under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act should be computed from the date of the original assessment order, not the date of the rectification order. The Court emphasized that the mistake in allowing a lower depreciation rate was embedded in the original assessment order, not the rectification order. The Court rejected the argument for a liberal construction of the limitation period, highlighting the rigidity of Section 154(7) without provisions for condoning delays.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Computation of the period of limitation for rectification under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
                          2. Whether the limitation period should be reckoned from the date of the original assessment order or the date of the rectification order.

                          Detailed Analysis:

                          Issue 1: Computation of the Period of Limitation for Rectification under Section 154

                          The primary issue is whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the period of limitation for rectification should be computed from the date of the rectification orders (July 12, 1982) rather than the original assessment orders. The Tribunal had concluded that the mistake sought to be rectified by the assessee was embedded in the rectification orders passed on July 12, 1982, and thus the limitation period should be computed from that date.

                          The High Court examined the facts and circumstances, noting that the assessee had initially claimed depreciation on factory buildings at five percent in its returns for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1980-81. The original assessment orders were completed on that basis. The assessee did not file any rectification application regarding this issue until July 4, 1986, when it claimed that the depreciation should have been ten percent.

                          The Income-tax Officer (ITO) rejected the assessee's rectification petition for the years 1976-77 to 1980-81, stating that the period of limitation ran from the dates of the original assessment orders. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld this decision. However, the Tribunal, relying on the Patna High Court decision in Bihar State Road Transport Corporation v. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 114, ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the limitation should be computed from July 12, 1982.

                          Issue 2: Whether the Limitation Period Should Be Reckoned from the Date of the Original Assessment Order or the Date of the Rectification Order

                          The High Court analyzed the arguments from both sides. The assessee argued that the original assessment order merged with the rectification orders of July 12, 1982, and thus the limitation period should start from that date. The Revenue, on the other hand, relied on the decision in Bengal Assam Steamship Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 114 ITR 327, which held that the limitation period should be computed from the date of the original order, even if a subsequent rectification order was passed.

                          The High Court noted that the Tribunal's view was that the mistake in the depreciation allowance was repeated in the rectification orders, and thus the limitation period should be computed from July 12, 1982. However, the High Court disagreed with this approach, stating that the assessment of income is a multi-faceted determination, and different aspects of depreciation can have separate mistakes. The Court emphasized that the doctrine of merger is not rigid and universal and that the original order does not completely merge with the rectification order.

                          The High Court concluded that the mistake in allowing a lower depreciation rate for factory buildings was embedded in the original assessment order and not in the rectification order, which dealt with extra shift allowance. Therefore, the limitation period should be computed from the date of the original assessment order, not from the rectification order.

                          The Court also addressed the argument for a liberal construction of the limitation period, stating that the limitation under Section 154(7) is rigid, and there is no provision for condoning the delay.

                          Conclusion:
                          The High Court answered the question in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The period of limitation for rectification should be computed from the date of the original assessment order, not from the date of the rectification order. There will be no order as to costs.

                          Shyamal Kumar Sen J. concurred with the judgment.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found