In Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -7 v. M/S. Pmp Auto Components Pvt Ltd, the High Court (2019) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: P.C.: 1.Revenue is in the appeal against the judgment of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short)raising following question for our consideration:- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, theTribunal was correct in recalling the order dated 22.8.2014 underS...
Decision: Underthese circumstances, no error on the part of the Tribunal.The appeal is dismissed. [ SARANG V.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J.INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 580 OF 2017
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -7
..Appellant
Versus
M/s. PMP Auto Components Pvt Ltd..Respondent
...................
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant
Mr. Madhur Agrawal i/by Mr. Atul Jasani for the RespondentMr. Madhur Agrawal i/by Mr. Atul Jasani for the Respondent
...................
CORAM : AKIL KURESHI &
SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 11, 2019.
P.C.:
1.Revenue is in the appeal against the judgment of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short)raising following question for our consideration:-
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, theTribunal was correct in recalling the order dated 22.8.2014 underSection 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961?"
2.The question arises out of the order passed by theTribunal in exercise of rectification powers. Undisputed factis that while passing the original order in the appeal of theassessee, the Tribunal had not dealt with a ground thoughraised. In order to rectify such error, the Tribunal entertained
and allowed the assessee's rectification application. Underthese circumstances, no error on the part of the Tribunal.The appeal is dismissed.
[ SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. ] [ AKIL KURESHI, J ]
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.