×Latest Case Laws on Income Tax by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals in India
These are the latest case laws decided by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals (ITAT) of India on Income Tax which have been published recently. The case laws are open for discussion and we invite expert comments from our members on its applicability and effect on relevant issues.
30-10-2019, Mitsubishi Electric Automotive, Section 254(2), Tribunal Delhi
This appeal is taken up for adjudication pursuant to the order of the Tribunal dated 10.06.2019 in MA No. 21/DEL/2019. The relevant findings of the Tribunal read as under:
“6. We have carefully considered the contents of the miscellaneous application and the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel. We find force in the contention of the counsel. It is true that the assessee had relied upon the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Mitsubishi corporation India Private Limited in ITA No.5042/Del/2011. We further find that the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sumitomo Corporation Tax Appeal No.381 of 2013. It is also true that in earlier years the revenue has accepted the bench marking of the international transaction by taking TNMM as MAM.
7. The ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power (supra) squarely applies on the facts of the case in hand.
8. It would be apt to refer to the conclusions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court full bench in the case of Lachman Dass Bhatia Hingwala (supra) :-
(A) The decision rendered in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd.  295 ITR 466 by the apex court is an authority for the proposition that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under certain circumstances can recall its own order and there is no absolute prohibition.
(B) In view of the law laid down in Honda Siel Products Ltd. [2—7] 295 ITR 466 by the apex court, the decisions rendered by this court in K. L. Bhatia  182 ITR 361 (Delhi), Deeksha J. N. Sahni  ITR 16 (Delhi) and Smt. Baljeet Jolly  250 ITR 114 (Delhi) which lay down the principle that the Tribunal under no circumstances can ecall its order in entirety do not lay down the correct statement of law.
(c) Any other decision or authority which has been rendered by pressing reliance on K. L . Bhatia  182 ITR 361 (Delhi) and the sa d line of decisions are also to be treated as not laying down the correct proposition of law that the Tribunal has no power to recall an order passed by it in exercise of power under section 254 (2) of the Act.
(D) The Tribunal, while exercising the power of rectification under section 254 (2) of the Act, can recall its order in entirety if it is satisfied that prejudice has resulted to the party which is attributable to the Tribunal’s mistake, error or omission and which error is a manifest error and it has nothing to do with the doctrine or concept of inherent power of review.
(E) When the justification of an order passed by the Tribunal recalling its own order is assailed in a writ petition, it is required to be tested on the anvil of law laid down by the apex court in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd.  295 ITR 466 SC and Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.  305 ITR 227
9. In the light of the above mentioned discussion and drawing support from the jurisd ction High Court decisions referred here in above. We are of the considered view that by not considering the previous assessment history of the assessee overlooking the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Mitsubishi (supra) and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sumitomo Corporation (supra) an error has crept in the order of the Tribunal.
10. We accordingly recall the order of the Tribunal for the limited purpose of adjudicating upon the applicability of the most appropriate method on the impugned international transaction.”