201 (Gujarat) Uttar Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. v. ITO

265 ITR 445High Court2004#10438 most cited

What is 201 (Gujarat) Uttar Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

Non-consideration of a judgment from the jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court constitutes a mistake apparent from the record, regardless of when the judgment was delivered, and can be rectified.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rectification · mistake apparent from record · jurisdictional High Court judgment · Supreme Court judgment · Section 154 · CIT vs Subodhchandra S. Patel · 265 ITR 445 · Gujarat High Court · Aruna Luthra · Punjab & Haryana High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145A(b)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 282a(1)section 194lasection 145a(b)section 145bsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 10(37)doctrine of mergerenhanced compensationsection 116

Judgments citing 201 (Gujarat) Uttar Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. v. ITO

Sh. Randhir Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT Rohtak, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…- the Tribunal and the High Court - were right in holding that such a mistake can be said to be a "mistake apparent from the record" which could be rectified under section 254(2). ii) (2024) 162 taxmann.com 201 (Gujarat) Uttar Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd vs ITO iii) 265 ITR 445 (Gujarat) CIT vs Subodhchandra S. Patel 14 The Ld. CIT had no power of revision u/s 263 of the Act of the assessment order passed by the National E-Assessment Centre. 14.1 In this regard it is submitted that S. 263(1) reads as under: 263. (1) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call…

Surjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…- the Tribunal and the High Court - were right in holding that such a mistake can be said to be a "mistake apparent from the record" which could be rectified under section 254(2). ii) (2024) 162 taxmann.com 201 (Gujarat) Uttar Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd vs ITO iii) 265 ITR 445 (Gujarat) CIT vs Subodhchandra S. Patel 14 The Ld. CIT had no power of revision u/s 263 of the Act of the assessment order passed by the National E-Assessment Centre. 14.1 In this regard it is submitted that S. 263(1) reads as under: 263. (1) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call…

Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…- the Tribunal and the High Court - were right in holding that such a mistake can be said to be a "mistake apparent from the record" which could be rectified under section 254(2). ii) (2024) 162 taxmann.com 201 (Gujarat) Uttar Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd vs ITO iii) 265 ITR 445 (Gujarat) CIT vs Subodhchandra S. Patel 14 The Ld. CIT had no power of revision u/s 263 of the Act of the assessment order passed by the National E-Assessment Centre. 14.1 In this regard it is submitted that S. 263(1) reads as under: 263. (1) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call…

Dhuni Chand HUF, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…- the Tribunal and the High Court - were right in holding that such a mistake can be said to be a "mistake apparent from the record" which could be rectified under section 254(2). ii) (2024) 162 taxmann.com 201 (Gujarat) Uttar Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd vs ITO iii) 265 ITR 445 (Gujarat) CIT vs Subodhchandra S. Patel 14 The Ld. CIT had no power of revision u/s 263 of the Act of the assessment order passed by the National E-Assessment Centre. 14.1 In this regard it is submitted that S. 263(1) reads as under: 263. (1) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call…

Sh. Kashmir Singh Sandha, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…- the Tribunal and the High Court - were right in holding that such a mistake can be said to be a "mistake apparent from the record" which could be rectified under section 254(2). ii) (2024) 162 taxmann.com 201 (Gujarat) Uttar Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd vs ITO iii) 265 ITR 445 (Gujarat) CIT vs Subodhchandra S. Patel 14 The Ld. CIT had no power of revision u/s 263 of the Act of the assessment order passed by the National E-Assessment Centre. 14.1 In this regard it is submitted that S. 263(1) reads as under: 263. (1) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call…

M/S Ganesh Dass HUF, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…- the Tribunal and the High Court - were right in holding that such a mistake can be said to be a "mistake apparent from the record" which could be rectified under section 254(2). ii) (2024) 162 taxmann.com 201 (Gujarat) Uttar Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd vs ITO iii) 265 ITR 445 (Gujarat) CIT vs Subodhchandra S. Patel 14 The Ld. CIT had no power of revision u/s 263 of the Act of the assessment order passed by the National E-Assessment Centre. 14.1 In this regard it is submitted that S. 263(1) reads as under: 263. (1) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call…

Sh. Arvail Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…- the Tribunal and the High Court - were right in holding that such a mistake can be said to be a "mistake apparent from the record" which could be rectified under section 254(2). ii) (2024) 162 taxmann.com 201 (Gujarat) Uttar Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd vs ITO iii) 265 ITR 445 (Gujarat) CIT vs Subodhchandra S. Patel 14 The Ld. CIT had no power of revision u/s 263 of the Act of the assessment order passed by the National E-Assessment Centre. 14.1 In this regard it is submitted that S. 263(1) reads as under: 263. (1) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call…

Keshava Jute Mills Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 651/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.649 - 651/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Keshava Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ward-1 (1), Kolkata 16A, Brabourne Road, Tea Board, Dalhousie, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aaeck 1349 P (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 18.08.2022 & 04.08.2022 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044789194(1), Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1044474580(1) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044474827(1), For The Assessment Years 2018-2019, 201-9-2020 & 2020-2021, Respectively. 2. Shri Ankit Jalan, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That Originally For The Assessment Years 2018-2019, 2019-2020 & 2020-2021, The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.10.2018, 31.10.2019 & 15.02.2021, Respectively. The Returns Filed By The Assessee Came To Be Processed & The Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Act Came To Be Issued In All The Cases On 18.09.2019, 16.10.2020 &

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jalan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Sr.DR
Section 116Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(1)Section 200ASection 206CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)

…d.CIT(A) within the time provided. A perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A) also shows that the ld. CIT(A) has considered the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Subodhchandra S. Patel, reported in 138 taxmann.com 185 (Guj)/[2004] 265 ITR 445(GUJ) has held that non-consideration of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court or the Apex Court would always 5 ITA No.649-651/Kol/2025 constitute a mistake apparent from the record, regardless of the judgment being rendered prior to or subsequent to the order proposed to be rectified. It would also be worthwhile to mention here that this…

Keshava Jute Mills Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 650/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.649 - 651/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Keshava Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ward-1 (1), Kolkata 16A, Brabourne Road, Tea Board, Dalhousie, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aaeck 1349 P (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 18.08.2022 & 04.08.2022 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044789194(1), Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1044474580(1) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044474827(1), For The Assessment Years 2018-2019, 201-9-2020 & 2020-2021, Respectively. 2. Shri Ankit Jalan, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That Originally For The Assessment Years 2018-2019, 2019-2020 & 2020-2021, The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.10.2018, 31.10.2019 & 15.02.2021, Respectively. The Returns Filed By The Assessee Came To Be Processed & The Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Act Came To Be Issued In All The Cases On 18.09.2019, 16.10.2020 &

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jalan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Sr.DR
Section 116Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(1)Section 200ASection 206CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)

…d.CIT(A) within the time provided. A perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A) also shows that the ld. CIT(A) has considered the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Subodhchandra S. Patel, reported in 138 taxmann.com 185 (Guj)/[2004] 265 ITR 445(GUJ) has held that non-consideration of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court or the Apex Court would always 5 ITA No.649-651/Kol/2025 constitute a mistake apparent from the record, regardless of the judgment being rendered prior to or subsequent to the order proposed to be rectified. It would also be worthwhile to mention here that this…

Keshava Jute Mills Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 649/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.649 - 651/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) Keshava Jute Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ward-1 (1), Kolkata 16A, Brabourne Road, Tea Board, Dalhousie, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aaeck 1349 P (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 18.08.2022 & 04.08.2022 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044789194(1), Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1044474580(1) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044474827(1), For The Assessment Years 2018-2019, 201-9-2020 & 2020-2021, Respectively. 2. Shri Ankit Jalan, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Ld. Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That Originally For The Assessment Years 2018-2019, 2019-2020 & 2020-2021, The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.10.2018, 31.10.2019 & 15.02.2021, Respectively. The Returns Filed By The Assessee Came To Be Processed & The Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Act Came To Be Issued In All The Cases On 18.09.2019, 16.10.2020 &

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jalan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Sr.DR
Section 116Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(1)Section 200ASection 206CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)

…d.CIT(A) within the time provided. A perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A) also shows that the ld. CIT(A) has considered the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Subodhchandra S. Patel, reported in 138 taxmann.com 185 (Guj)/[2004] 265 ITR 445(GUJ) has held that non-consideration of the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court or the Apex Court would always 5 ITA No.649-651/Kol/2025 constitute a mistake apparent from the record, regardless of the judgment being rendered prior to or subsequent to the order proposed to be rectified. It would also be worthwhile to mention here that this…