M/S. BIRLA EDUTECH LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-3(1)(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of set-off of losses under Section 79, invoked via Section 154, was not a mistake apparent from the record. The issue involved interpretation of various provisions of the Income Tax Act and Companies Act, making it a debatable issue.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Birla Edutech Ltd., claimed set-off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The AO initially allowed this claim but later disallowed it by invoking Section 154, treating it as a mistake apparent from the record due to a change in shareholding under Section 79.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO could invoke Section 154 to rectify a decision on the applicability of Section 79, which involved interpretation of multiple laws and was considered a debatable issue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 79,Section 154,Section 2(18)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(8)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.382 citing82 ITR 50 · 1971 · SC
- CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd.262 citing228 ITR 463 · 1997 · SC
- Surana Steels P Ltd. v. DCIT20 citing237 ITR 777 · 1999 · SC
- CIT vs. Karnataka Bank, 226 Taxman 197. 2. CIT v. City Union Bank Ltd.10 citing249 ITR 491 · 2001 · HC
- CIT v. Amco Power Systems Ltd.9 citing379 ITR 375 · 2015 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Shri Subhulaxmi Mills Ltd.9 citing249 ITR 795 · 2001 · SC
- 5607 of 2007) CIT v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd (1997) 108 ITR 869 (Bom) CIT v. Schlumberger Sea Co. Inc.5 citing264 ITR 331 · 2003 · HC
- Calcutta Steel Co. Ltd. (1985) 153 ITR 488 (Cal) Jagatdal Jute and Industries Ltd. v. CIT & ANR.3 citing334 ITR 186 · 2011 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP & SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM
PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai dated 10.02.2020 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: - “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as Ld. CIT(A)] was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO by disallowing set off of c/f losses and unabsorbed depreciation by invoking th
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Partha Chatterjee, Hooghly vs ACIT, Circle - 1, HooghlyKolkata17 Jan 2020Allowed
The Tribunal held that the AO's action under Section 154 was not justified as it involved an under-assessment and not an apparent mistake. The Tribunal noted that the AO himself treated the issue as under-assessment, whi...
- Piyush Garg, Ahmedabad vs DCIT, CC-1(2), AhmedabadAhmedabad9 Dec 2025Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the rectification order under Section 154 was bad in law as it involved a debatable issue, which cannot be adjudicated under Section 154. The Tribunal noted that the AO's action was not a correctio...
- Baani Landbase Private Limited, New Delhi vs DCIT, Circle-4(2), New DelhiDelhi30 Oct 2025Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the AO's attempt to rectify the assessment order under Section 154 using the same grounds for which reassessment proceedings were dropped constituted an issue that required debate and was not a mis...
- Mcm Developers, Aurangabad vs DCIT. Central Circle-1, AurangabadPune17 Sept 2025Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the rectification under Section 154 was not permissible as the original invocation of Section 269ST was a possible legal view, not a mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, the rectification o...
- Aviaxpert Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs ITO Ward 3(1), New DelhiDelhi9 Aug 2024Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the rectification order was bad in law as it was passed without issuing prior notice and opportunity of hearing to the assessee, violating Section 154(3). Additionally, the disallowance was outside...
More judgments on Section 79
- Yashpal Singh Yadav, Noida vs ACIT Circle-2(3)91), JhansiITA 443/AGR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Mohd Khalid vs Commissioner of CustomsW.P.(C)-16945/20252 Sept 2026
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Rab Enterprises (India) Private Limited…ITA 3867/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed19 Jun 2026AY 2015-16
- Manas Agro Industries and Infrastructure… vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 3(2)(1), MumbaiITA 5588/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2018-2019
- Manas Agro Industries and Infrastructure… vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 3(2)(1), MumbaiITA 5586/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2017-2018
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
