2012 (5) TMI 390

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Member:-   1. In this case, the Tribunal had passed the order on 30th May, 2008, in which the order passed by the learned CIT, Moradabad on 21st March, 2006, was set aside and the order of the AO was restored. The Revenue moved an application under s. 254(2) of the Act on 23rd July, 2010 to the effect that there was a mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal, which may be ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt forms a valid basis for rectifying a pre-existing order of the Tribunal under s. 254(2) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order may be rectified by taking into account this decision.   2.1 In reply, the learned counsel referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT us. Max India Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR (SC) 266 : (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). In this decision, it has been....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6) 162 ITR 784 (MP), held that the power subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt. The CIT revised this order and without assigning any reason held that the subsidy was revenue receipt. Subsequently, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court was received in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 142 CTR (SC) 261 : (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC), in which it was held that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der, the issue was contentious as different High Courts had interpreted the question differently. There was no decision of the jurisdictional High Court available in the matter. Thus, at the relevant point of time two views were possible. Accordingly, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the revisionary order could not have been passed to deny the benefit to the assessee.   3. ....