Promissory note presumption of consideration survives blank-signature and income-tax non-disclosure objections when admissions and attesting evidence ...
The HC dismissed rectification under Section 254(2) sought to alter an ITAT order which had deleted a disallowance made in an intimation under Section 143(1) where the Assessee's belated deposit of employees' PF/ESI had been disallowed under Section 36(1)(va). The court held that a subsequent SC pronouncement cannot constitute a mistake apparent on the record for purposes of Section 254(2). Because the ITAT's original order conformed to the law as it existed when rendered, no error apparent on the face of the record existed to permit rectification; therefore the rectification invocation was barred.
The HC dismissed rectification under Section 254(2) sought to alter an ITAT order which had deleted a disallowance made in an intimation under Section 143(1) where the Assessee's belated deposit of employees' PF/ESI had been disallowed under Section 36(1)(va). The court held that a subsequent SC pronouncement cannot constitute a mistake apparent on the record for purposes of Section 254(2). Because the ITAT's original order conformed to the law as it existed when rendered, no error apparent on the face of the record existed to permit rectification; therefore the rectification invocation was barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
