2015 (11) TMI 126

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... apparent on the record in the judgments passed by this Court on 24.5.2014. 2. The review of judgment has primarily been sought on the ground that this court while passing the impugned judgment has not considered the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act (for short the 'Act'), more particularly section 115 JB and has further failed to take into consideration the effect of the judgment rendered by the Hon'be Supreme Court in Indo Rama Synthetics India Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi (2011) 2 SCC 168. Though this provision had not only been cited, but argued at length. 3. Before adverting to the merits of such contention, scope of review is first required to be borne-in-mind. 4. This Bench had already co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negative. (x) Review is not maintainable on the basis of a subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of the Court or of a superior Court. (xi) While considering an application for review, court must confine it....