#Rectification

The Bombay High Court denied a stay under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act because the defendants neither pleaded invalidity of the plaintiff's registered marks in their written statement nor filed rectification proceedings before the High Court, opting instead for the Registrar. The ruling clarifies that both procedural prerequisites are mandatory for a stay application.

ITAT Kolkata has ruled that errors in an income tax return - such as incorrect LTCG computation - can be corrected under Section 154 if apparent from the record, regardless of whether the rectification changes the total income. This affirms that the scope of rectification extends to the return itself, not just assessment orders, reinforcing natural justice and the tax officer’s duty to ensure accurate computation under CBDT Circular 14/1955.

Once a scrutiny assessment is completed under Section 143(3), any prior intimation under Section 143(1) is absorbed and ceases to exist as an independent order. This means the Assessing Officer cannot later rely on the 143(1) intimation to justify a rectification under Section 154, ensuring finality in the assessment process and protecting taxpayers from retroactive adjustments based on preliminary notices.

ITAT Ahmedabad rules that the 60% tax rate under Section 115BBE applies prospectively from A.Y. 2018-19, not A.Y. 2017-18, invalidating rectification orders under Section 154 where legal interpretation is debatable. The decision reinforces natural justice principles, protecting assessees from retrospective tax impositions without clear legislative intent.