Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.Nagaprasanna
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1) – Appellant
Versus
Mangilal Padamchand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's requests to review tribunal's order. (Para 2) |
| 2. overview of the tribunal's prior decisions. (Para 3) |
ORDER :
M.Nagaprasanna, J.
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers:
"(A) set aside order dated order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C Bench, Bangalore dated 16/6/2023 in M.A.No.77/Bang/2023 in ITA No.25/Bang/2022 (Annexure-A) is produced for A.Y. 2018-19.
(B) Condone the delay in filing the miscellaneous petition before Tribunal and direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider the miscellaneous petition on merits of the case
(B) Or Alternatively condone the delay in filing the miscellaneous petition before Tribunal and also hear the matter on merits of the case
(C) Pass such other orders as may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice."
2. Heard Sri.E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Vani H, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record.
3. Learned counsel for the parties in unison submits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.27089/2023 (T-IT) disposed on 3
A change in law cannot serve as grounds for reviewing previous Tribunal rulings, reaffirming that adjudications must follow the law as it was at the time of the original decision.
The Tribunal erred by misapplying delay standards and procedural provisions, failing to recognize sufficient cause under Section 253(5) for the petitioner’s late cross-objection.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the treatment of interest income received on staff loan and other advances as business income or income from other sources should be based on ....
The ITAT lacks jurisdiction to condone delay in filing a rectification application beyond six months as per Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The main legal point established is that the Tribunal should consider the appropriate provisions, such as Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, when dealing with applications for recalling orders, and the need ....
Rectification under the Income Tax Act is confined to mistakes apparent from the record and not mere discrepancies in legal opinions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
