1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Tax Tribunal Dismisses Appeals; High Court Allows Error Claims in Pending Tax Appeal Hearings.</h1> The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appellants' appeals, prompting them to file appeals under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, ... - Issues involved: Dismissal of appeals by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), filing of appeals under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and dismissal of applications under section 254 of the Income Tax Act by the Tribunal.Summary:1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeals of the appellants/assessees, leading them to file appeals under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals are currently pending consideration before the Delhi High Court. Additionally, the appellants also filed applications under section 254 of the Income Tax Act before the Tribunal, citing errors apparent on the face of the record. However, the Tribunal dismissed these applications through impugned orders dated 30-6-2009. The appellants argued that there were apparent errors in the Tribunal's orders, which are already subject to appeal before the High Court. The High Court allowed the appellants to raise these grounds during the appeal hearing.2. The Tribunal, while considering the appellants' applications under section 254 of the Income Tax Act, stated that it is not permissible to re-examine the merits of the case and arrive at a different conclusion from the one already reached. The Tribunal emphasized that if its view was erroneous, the appropriate remedy would be to file an appeal against the impugned orders. As the orders in question were already under appeal, the Tribunal reserved the right for the appellants to raise grounds highlighting the alleged errors apparent on the face of the record during the appeal hearings. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of by the High Court.