TAJ TV LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. DCIT(IT)4.1.2, MUMBAI

आदेश / ORDER

PER SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the learned CIT(A)-58, Mumbai, arising out of

ITA 3365/MUM/2026 TAJ TV LTD the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 19.02.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18. The principal grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Assessing Officer in subjecting the interest income on income-tax refund under section 244A amounting to ₹18,55,93,487 to tax at the rate applicable under the domestic law, instead of the rate of 7.5% under the India-Mauritius DTAA, which rate had specifically been applied in the final assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) dated 12.04.2021. The assessee has challenged the impugned action primarily on the ground that such subsequent alteration of the rate of tax was beyond the scope and jurisdiction of section 154. 2. Before us, the learned counsel, Shri Madhur Agarwal, drawing our attention to the relevant orders and the chronology of proceedings, submitted that though the assessee in its return of income filed on 30.11.2017 had offered the interest income under section 244A to tax under the provisions of the Act and thereafter filed a revised return on 29.03.2019, the final assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) on 12.04.2021 specifically subjected the said interest income to tax at the rate of 7.5% under the India-Mauritius DTAA. Our attention was specifically invited to paragraph 8 of the final assessment order wherein, under the head “Income from Other Sources”, the Assessing Officer had determined the interest income at ₹18,55,93,487 and immediately thereunder recorded “Taxable @ 7.5% under India-Mauritius DTAA.” Thus, according to the learned counsel, whatever may have been the treatment adopted in the return of income, the assessment proceedings culminated in a final statutory order determining the rate applicable to this income at 7.5% under the DTAA.

ITA 3365/MUM/2026 TAJ TV LTD 3. Thereafter, the assessee had challenged certain additions made in the assessment on altogether different issues, including computation of capital gains, which ultimately travelled to the Tribunal and relief was granted to the assessee. Pursuant thereto, the Assessing Officer passed an order giving effect on 30.05.2023 and recomputed the taxable income at ₹18,55,93,487. However, while determining the resultant tax liability, the aforesaid interest income was subjected to tax at the rate adopted in the return instead of the rate of 7.5% specifically stipulated in the final assessment order dated 12.04.2021. The assessee, therefore, filed an application under section 154 on 05.06.2023 pointing out, inter alia, that the income had been taxed at 43.26% instead of 7.5% under the India-Mauritius DTAA. 4. The Assessing Officer examined the said application and passed an order under section 154 dated 28.11.2023. Significantly, after noticing the assessee’s specific contention that the income had been taxed at 43.26% instead of 7.5% as per the India-Mauritius DTAA, the Assessing Officer recorded that the “contention of the assessee is verified and found tenable.” Thus, upon verification of the assessment record, the Assessing Officer accepted that the tax rate applied while giving effect to the Tribunal’s order was inconsistent with the treatment contained in the final assessment order and rectified the same. The learned counsel submitted that this itself demonstrates that application of the treaty rate was not a fresh claim being entertained dehors the assessment record, but was merely giving effect to the rate already determined in the final assessment order. 5. Subsequently, however, another order under section 154 came to be passed on 19.02.2025. In this order, the Assessing Officer once again reversed the position and rejected the applicability of the rate of 7.5% under the India- Mauritius DTAA essentially on the ground that the assessee itself, in its return

ITA 3365/MUM/2026 TAJ TV LTD of income, had offered the interest income to tax at 40% plus surcharge and cess. The total income remained unchanged at ₹18,55,93,487, but the tax liability was recomputed by applying the domestic-law rate. It is this subsequent rectification order dated 19.02.2025 which is the subject matter of the present appeal. 6. The learned CIT(A) has upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. The reasoning of the learned CIT(A), in substance, is that since the assessee had itself offered the interest income to tax under the provisions of the Act in the return of income and had not claimed the benefit of the DTAA by way of a revised return, the assessee had exercised its option under section 90 in favour of the provisions of the Act. He further observed that there was no discussion in the body of the original assessment order regarding applicability of the DTAA to the interest income and, therefore, the reference to the rate of 7.5% in the computation portion could not be regarded as a conscious adjudication by the Assessing Officer and represented a mistake apparent from the record. The learned CIT(A) also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. for the proposition that the Assessing Officer could not entertain a claim not made through the return of income. On this reasoning, the rectification order dated 19.02.2025 has been sustained. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material and the sequence of statutory orders placed before us. In our opinion, the issue can be disposed of on the jurisdictional ambit of section 154 itself. Section 154 permits rectification of a mistake apparent from the record. The mistake sought to be corrected must, therefore, be manifest from the existing record and should not require reconsideration of an issue, interpretation of competing legal propositions or substitution of one possible view by another. The power of

ITA 3365/MUM/2026 TAJ TV LTD rectification cannot be enlarged into a power to review or reconsider a concluded determination. 8. In the present case, the final assessment order dated 12.04.2021 leaves little ambiguity as regards the treatment actually accorded by the Assessing Officer to the interest income. Paragraph 8 thereof contains the computation of assessed income and, against the interest income of ₹18,55,93,487, specifically records “Taxable @ 7.5% under India-Mauritius DTAA.” The computation determining the tax treatment of a particular component of income forms an integral part of the assessment order. Whether the assessee had originally offered such income at a higher rate in its return or whether there was an elaborate discussion preceding the computation is not determinative of the limited jurisdictional issue before us. The fact remains that the final assessment order expressly applied the rate of 7.5% to this particular income and the said determination was never independently rectified, revised or otherwise disturbed in accordance with law. 9. The issues which subsequently travelled in appeal and ultimately came before the Tribunal were different issues. Therefore, while passing the order giving effect to the Tribunal’s decision, the Assessing Officer was required to give effect to the appellate directions while preserving those components of the original assessment which had neither been appealed against nor disturbed. The order giving effect could not provide a jurisdiction to alter an independent determination contained in the final assessment order which had already attained finality. Thus, when the order giving effect dated 30.05.2023 applied the domestic rate to the interest income contrary to the express stipulation of 7.5% in the final assessment order, the assessee pointed out this discrepancy by filing the application under section 154.

ITA 3365/MUM/2026 TAJ TV LTD 10. More importantly, the Assessing Officer himself examined this very contention in the first rectification proceedings and, by order dated 28.11.2023, expressly recorded that the assessee’s contention had been “verified and found tenable.” Therefore, the first rectification merely brought the order giving effect in conformity with the treatment already contained in the final assessment order. The subsequent order dated 19.02.2025, however, proceeds on an altogether different premise and once again substitutes the domestic rate by relying upon the treatment adopted by the assessee in the return of income. Thus, on the same assessment record, the Assessing Officer had earlier found application of the rate of 7.5% to be correct and rectifiable, whereas subsequently a contrary view has been adopted that the domestic rate was required to be applied. This itself demonstrates that what was sought to be undertaken through the subsequent order was not correction of a patent or self- evident mistake, but reconsideration of the tax treatment already reflected in the final assessment order. 11. We are also unable to subscribe to the reasoning of the learned CIT(A) that because there was no elaborate discussion regarding applicability of the DTAA in the body of the assessment order, the specific reference to 7.5% in the computation could be treated as an apparent mistake. Whether the original Assessing Officer consciously granted the treaty benefit; whether the treatment adopted in the return precluded the Assessing Officer from applying the beneficial treaty rate; and whether the principle referred to in Goetze (India) Ltd. would have any application in such circumstances are themselves matters which would require examination and legal reasoning. Once such an exercise becomes necessary to establish the very existence of the alleged mistake, it cannot be regarded as a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of section 154. In fact, the reasoning adopted by the learned CIT(A) for treating

ITA 3365/MUM/2026 TAJ TV LTD the original computation as erroneous itself demonstrates that the matter admits of an argumentative process and cannot be corrected through the narrow jurisdiction of rectification. 12. Further, merely because the assessee itself had earlier invoked section 154 cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to subsequently review the final assessment. The nature of the two exercises is materially different. The assessee’s rectification application dated 05.06.2023 sought to bring the order giving effect in conformity with the final assessment order dated 12.04.2021. The subsequent rectification dated 19.02.2025, on the contrary, effectively alters the very tax treatment expressly embodied in that final assessment order. Jurisdiction under section 154 has to be tested independently with reference to the particular mistake sought to be rectified and cannot arise from the conduct or acquiescence of either party. 13. Thus, the sequence of events is clear. The final assessment order expressly applied the rate of 7.5% under the India-Mauritius DTAA; the said determination was never disturbed by any statutory proceeding; the order giving effect subsequently departed from that determination; on the assessee pointing out the discrepancy, the Assessing Officer verified the record and accepted the contention as tenable by the rectification order dated 28.11.2023; and thereafter the Assessing Officer once again reversed the position by the subsequent rectification dated 19.02.2025. Such successive reconsideration and substitution of one view by another cannot be brought within the limited expression “mistake apparent from the record” contemplated under section 154. 14. Accordingly, we hold that the Assessing Officer exceeded the jurisdiction vested in him under section 154 in passing the impugned rectification order dated 19.02.2025 and the learned CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the

ITA 3365/MUM/2026 TAJ TV LTD same. The said rectification order is, therefore, quashed. Consequently, the Assessing Officer is directed to apply the rate of 7.5% on the interest income of ₹18,55,93,487, as specifically determined in the final assessment order dated 12.04.2021, and give consequential effect in accordance with law. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th day of August 2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

(RAKESH KUMAR LODHA) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 18/08/2026 Soumili, PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to: अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 1. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 2. आयकरआयु� CIT 3. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, 4. Mumbai गाड�फाइल/Guard file. 5.

BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI