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>ITAT Hyderabad Upholds Decision on Market Value Dispute</h1> <h3>M/s. Krishna Kumar D. Shah (HUF), M/s. Pramod Shah (HUF), M/s. Brij Gopal P. Shah (HUF), M/s. Sandeep P. Shah (HUF) Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2, Hyderabad</h3> The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad dismissed Miscellaneous Applications seeking rectification of its order based on the assessee's ground regarding the ... - Issues involved: Rectification of Tribunal order based on a ground raised by the assessee regarding determination of market value.Summary:The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad addressed Miscellaneous Applications seeking rectification in the Tribunal's order. The assessee had raised a ground related to determining market value based on records of the Registrar of Assurance. The Tribunal dismissed this ground, stating it did not emanate from the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal's decision was challenged, citing a Supreme Court judgment and arguing for clear findings. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, emphasized that it had already considered the issue and could not re-hear the case. It highlighted that statutory authority cannot review its order unless expressly conferred, and the scope of review does not extend to re-hearing on merit.The Tribunal discussed the limited scope of rectification under section 254(2), emphasizing that recalling the entire order is not permissible. The power to rectify a mistake does not allow for recalling the entire order and passing a fresh decision. The Tribunal's order under section 254(1) is considered the effective order, and any amendment under section 254(2) gets merged with the original order. The Tribunal cannot reverse a decision on merits through a recall. The judgment referred to various legal precedents to support the interpretation of the Tribunal's powers under section 254(2).In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the argument for review and rectification of its order. It stated that the Tribunal cannot review its own order, and the remedy lies elsewhere. The Tribunal rejected the ground raised by the assessee's counsel, leading to the dismissal of all Miscellaneous Applications by different assessees.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
