TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 525
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Goenka,Adv., Mr. Sunil Murarka,Adv., Mr. Kunal Chatterji,Adv., Mr. Tavish Bhusan Prasad,Adv., Mr. Saransh Kumar,Adv., Ms. Sadhna Saxena,Adv. ORDER The Civil Appeal No. 10495/2013 and Civil Appeal 1619 of 2012 arise out of two judgments delivered by the High Court of judicature at Guwahati. By the first judgment dated 16.09.2010 various points on merits were gone into, inter alia, as to whether deductions to be made under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were allowable on facts and whether transport subsidies were or were not available together with other incentives. Ultimately the High Court after stating in paragraph 2 that two substantial questions of law arose under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act went on to answer the tw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rage to acknowledge our mistake, recall the judgment and order dated 16.09.2010, and, then, decide the appeal, on merit, after having formulated the substantial questions of law, which this Court may deem necessary for adjudication of the appeal. 127. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, these review petitions succeed. The impugned judgment and order stand accordingly reviewed and recalled." Mr. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue, assailed the aforesaid judgment dated 08.04.2013 stating that it was factually incorrect that no substantial questions of law have been framed and that such questions are to be found in the very beginning of the judgment dated 16.09.2010 itself. He ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... matter at all given the fact that on an earlier occasion, before 16.09.2010, it had reserved judgment on whether substantial questions of law in fact exist at all or not. This being the case, in a lengthy order the very Division Bench has thought it fit to recall its own earlier judgment. In the above circumstances, we do not feel inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment in view of what has been recorded in the impugned judgment dated 08.04.2013. Insofar as the second question is concerned, we accept the submission of Mr. Subramaniam that High Courts being Courts of Record under Art. 215 of the Constitution of India, the power of review would in fact inhere in them. This was in fact so decided in a slightly different context while....