TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rejects assessee's plea for review under Section 254(2) of Income-tax Act.</h1> <h3>M/s. Ama Medical & Diagnostic Versus Dy. CIT-VI, Lucknow</h3> M/s. Ama Medical & Diagnostic Versus Dy. CIT-VI, Lucknow - TMI Issues Involved:1. Rectification under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Application of the judgment in CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd.3. Scope and limitations of Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Rectification under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The assessee sought rectification of the Tribunal's order dated 11.4.2014, arguing that the Tribunal failed to follow the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd., which was approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The assessee contended that an error had crept into the Tribunal's order as it took a contrary view.2. Application of the judgment in CIT vs. Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd.:The Tribunal noted that while adjudicating the issue, it had considered the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd., the Special Bench of the Tribunal in M/s Merilyin Shipping & Transports vs. ACIT, and other judgments from different High Courts. The Tribunal observed that the Hon'ble High Court in Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. made a passing reference and did not raise the impugned issue. The Tribunal concluded that the Hon'ble High Court did not examine whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) could be made only for amounts payable as on 31st March of the relevant year. The Tribunal also noted that the Special Bench's decision in Merilyn Shipping & Transports was stayed by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court and was not approved by the jurisdictional High Court.3. Scope and limitations of Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act:The Tribunal emphasized that the scope of Section 254(2) is limited to rectifying arithmetical or clerical errors apparent on the record. It cannot be used to review or modify an order based on reappraisal of facts or legal positions. The Tribunal cited various judicial pronouncements, including the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts, to support this view. It was held that if an order is passed after examining all aspects, it cannot be reviewed under the guise of rectification. The Tribunal concluded that there was no apparent error in its order and dismissed the Miscellaneous Application.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's Miscellaneous Application, holding that the scope of Section 254(2) is very limited and does not allow for review or modification of an order unless there is an apparent error. The Tribunal found that its original order was passed after considering all relevant judgments and legal positions, and thus, no rectifiable error existed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
