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>Implementing Tribunal Orders: High Court Rejects Rectification Request, Emphasizes Compliance</h1> <h3>SURESHCHANDRA KANTILAL ACHARYA Versus ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY</h3> SURESHCHANDRA KANTILAL ACHARYA Versus ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY - [2018] 408 ITR 99 (Guj) Issues:Challenge to notice seeking to rectify an order for giving effect to a judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.Analysis:The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, challenged a notice issued by the Assessing Officer seeking to rectify an order passed to implement a judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had directed the Assessing Officer to compute the petitioner's book profit in a specific manner with regard to the application of section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the availability of adjustment under section 54EC of the Act. The Tribunal's direction was based on a judgment of the Madras High Court, which allowed the deduction under section 54EC in an assessment under section 115JB. The Assessing Officer initially complied with the Tribunal's order by recalculating the petitioner's book profit as per the directions given. However, the Assessing Officer later issued a notice seeking to rectify the order, citing an apparent error in allowing the deduction under section 54EC.The High Court observed that the issue was straightforward, as the Assessing Officer had correctly implemented the Tribunal's direction in the initial order dated 12.12.2017. The Court noted that the Assessing Officer's proposal to rectify the order based on an apparent error was unfounded, as there was no mistake in implementing the Tribunal's judgment. The Court emphasized that once an order of the Tribunal is in place, it must be implemented, and the power of rectification is not meant to challenge the correctness of such implementation. The Court clarified that any disputes with the Tribunal's proposition should be addressed separately and not through the rectification process. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned notice dated 13.02.2018 and disposed of the petition accordingly.
TaxTMI 