Case LawHigh Court › M/S North Eastern Electric v. Pr. Commis...

M/S North Eastern Electric v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax,Power Corporation Limited. Shillong

High Court 29 Jul 2024 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · meghalaya
Parties
M/S North Eastern Electric v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax,Power Corporation Limited. Shillong
Date of order
29 Jul 2024
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In M/S North Eastern Electric v. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax,Power Corporation Limited. Shillong, the High Court (2024) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

Serial No.02Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYAAT SHILLONG MC (ITA) No.2/2024 Date of order: 29.07.2024 M/s North Eastern Electric Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax,Power Corporation Limited. Shillong. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan, Chief JusticeHon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge Appearance: Learned counsel for the applicant drew the attention of this Courtto the typographical errors appearing at paragraphs 5 and 9 of the orderdated 08.07.2024. 2.The said errors in the order dated 08.07.2024 appears to havebeen through inadvertent typographical mistake. Therefore, the word“Department” appearing in paragraph 5 of the order dated 08.07.2024shall be read as “Company” and the words “warrant interference” shallbe read as “warrants no interference”. So also in paragraph 9 of theorder dated 08.07.2024 the words “It was the case of the Company that there was no real income accrued to the Company and in fact, theincome accrued was only hypothetical, as the transaction recordedunder the advance licences or under the duty entitlement passbook donot represent the real income of the assessee and as such, the re-assessment order of the Authority concerned on the basis of HybridSystem of accounting has no legs to stand” stands deleted and bereplaced by the words “It was the case of the Company that there wasno real income accrued to the Company and in fact, the income accruedwas only hypothetical, late payment surcharge do not represent the realincome of the assessee and as such, the re-assessment order of theAuthority concerned on the basis of Hybrid System of accounting hasno legs to stand”. 3.Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in makingthose corrections. 4.In view of the above, MC (ITA) No.2 of 2024 is disposed of. (W. Diengdoh) Judge (S. Vaidyanathan)Chief Justice
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan