TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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.
Issues: Whether the assessee's application for rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be rejected when a later jurisdictional High Court decision held that loss from the pension fund had to be excluded in computing the insurance business income under section 44 read with the First Schedule.
Analysis: A subsequent decision of the jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court can render an earlier order mistaken for purposes of rectification if the issue decided later is identical to the issue in the pending matter. The question was whether loss from the pension fund formed part of the insurance business computation or stood outside it because the related income was exempt under section 10(23AAB) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The later High Court ruling had answered that the pension fund continued to be governed by section 44 and that the loss was to be taken into account in actuarial valuation, making the contrary assessment order inconsistent with the correct legal position. The fact that the assessee had earlier taken a considered view or that the assessment had attained finality did not prevent rectification where the legal position declared later applied to the same issue.
Conclusion: The rectification issue was decided in favour of the assessee, and the rejection of the section 154 application could not be sustained.
TaxTMI 
