254(2) of the Act. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT

295 ITR 466Supreme Court of India2007#3363 most cited

What is 254(2) of the Act. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A mistake apparent from the record that prejudices a party is rectifiable under section 254(2) of the Act.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT · 295 ITR 466 · section 254(2) · mistake apparent from record · rectification of mistake · miscellaneous application · prejudice to party

Sections most often in play

Section 145ASection 254(2)Section 43BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 249(3)Section 250Section 57

Issues it is cited on

section 254(2)mistake apparent from recordsection 145amiscellaneous applicationsection 43bsection 254gross total incomesection 80psection 43section 145section 24section 154

Judgments citing 254(2) of the Act. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT

Salahuddin Abdul Rahim Khan, Mumbai vs. Ward 19(3)(1), Matru Mandir

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7627/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarsalahuddin Abdul Rahim Vs. Ito – Ward 19(3)(1) Khan Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor B Block Flat No. 402 4Th F Matru Mandir, West Garden View, Mumbai - 400008 Mumbai - 400008 Pan/Gir No. Aadpk7525R (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 250(1)

…the period of delay and in ignoring evidence filed in response to notices. 7 The order of the learned CIT(A), NFAC is contrary to the binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector v. Katiji (167 ITR 471), Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT (295 ITR 466), and of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). 8. The appellant prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may condone the delay, set aside the impugned order, and restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, or alternatively, decide the appeal on merits in the…

The Sangli Salary Earners Co Op Society Ltd, Sangli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3 Sangli, Sangli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2254/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2254/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Sangli Salary Earners Co V The Income Tax Officer, Op Society Ltd., S. Ward-3, Sangli. 1104 B, Harbhat Road, Main City, Sangli – 416416 Pan: Aaaat0980D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Amit Sudhir Shintre(Virtual) Revenue By Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 27.08.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Read With Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Relying On The Decision Of Totgars Co-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”बी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No.2254/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Sangli Salary Earners Co V The Income Tax Officer, Op Society Ltd., s. Ward-3, Sangli. 1104 B, Harbhat Road, Main City, Sangli – 416416 PAN: AAAAT0980D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Amit Sudhir Shintre(Virtual) Revenue by Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain-Addl.CIT Date of hearing 17/11/2025 Date of pronouncement 17/11/2025 आदेश/ O…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both recalled appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 4174/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 254(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4174/Del/2010, A.Y. 2003-04 Dy. Commissioner of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Income Tax, Range-6, (formerly known as Maruti C. R. Building, Vs. Udyog Ltd.), Plot No.1, I. P. Estate, New Delhi Nelson Mandela Road Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70 PAN: AAACM0829Q (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.4081/Del/2010, A.Y. 2003-04 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Addl. Commissioner of (formerly known as Maruti Income Tax, Range-6, Udyog Ltd.), Plot No.1, Vs. C. R. Building, Nelso…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both recalled appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 4081/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 254(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4174/Del/2010, A.Y. 2003-04 Dy. Commissioner of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Income Tax, Range-6, (formerly known as Maruti C. R. Building, Vs. Udyog Ltd.), Plot No.1, I. P. Estate, New Delhi Nelson Mandela Road Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70 PAN: AAACM0829Q (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.4081/Del/2010, A.Y. 2003-04 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Addl. Commissioner of (formerly known as Maruti Income Tax, Range-6, Udyog Ltd.), Plot No.1, Vs. C. R. Building, Nelso…

DCIT, Central Circle- 7, New Delhi vs. Style Solutions Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both recalled appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 4174/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 254(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4174/Del/2010, A.Y. 2003-04 Dy. Commissioner of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Income Tax, Range-6, (formerly known as Maruti C. R. Building, Vs. Udyog Ltd.), Plot No.1, I. P. Estate, New Delhi Nelson Mandela Road Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-70 PAN: AAACM0829Q (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.4081/Del/2010, A.Y. 2003-04 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Addl. Commissioner of (formerly known as Maruti Income Tax, Range-6, Udyog Ltd.), Plot No.1, Vs. C. R. Building, Nelso…

Kathikode Charitable Trust, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 948/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

…y be, non- action, prejudice any party before it. And, where, or shown to be, so, it is a ‘mistake’ 8 | P a g e ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO liable to be rectified (Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466 (SC)).In the instant case we find the assessee to have filed the returns of income in the prescribed form, claiming to be filled correctly, i.e., consistent with it’s accounts, at a deficit, so that the question of claiming exemption u/s. 11 for application of income, denied thereto, does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. If i…

Kathikode Charitable Trust, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer., Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 947/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

…y be, non- action, prejudice any party before it. And, where, or shown to be, so, it is a ‘mistake’ 8 | P a g e ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO liable to be rectified (Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466 (SC)).In the instant case we find the assessee to have filed the returns of income in the prescribed form, claiming to be filled correctly, i.e., consistent with it’s accounts, at a deficit, so that the question of claiming exemption u/s. 11 for application of income, denied thereto, does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. If i…

J.P Tobacco Product Pvt. Ltd., Damoh vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Sagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as indicated above

ITA 124/JAB/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalej.P.Tobacco Products Vs Asst.Cit, Pvt.Ltd., Patharia Phatak, Circle-Sagar (M.P.) Damoh (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaacj7141G Assessee By Shri G.N.Purohit, Sr.Adv. & Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

Section 80Section 801ASection 80HSection 80I

…se for a preceding year. The same renders it's order per incuriam. The same in any case constitutes a mistake within the contemplation of s. 254(2) of the Act, and toward which reference is drawn to the decision in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466 (SC). 4. In view of the foregoing, the MA by the Revenue is entitled to succeed. We, accordingly, restore the assessee's captioned appeal in respect of the said ground/s for adjudication afresh by the Tribunal after hearing the parties in accordance with law. Further, the matter being already long delayed, it be posted for hearing for 21/10/2022.…

Smt. Vasanthi Padmanabha Sherugar, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 545/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sridharan P, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…19 CTR (SC) 90 has held that non- consideration of the decision of the jurisdictional high court/Supreme Court constitutes mistake apparent from record and is rectifiable within the meaning of section 25412) of the Act be Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. r. CIT 295 ITR 466. the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the scope of rectification powers u/s/254(2) of the Act, as follows: Page 6 of 10 "Scope of the Power of Rectification 12. As stated above, in this case we are concerned with the application under section 2540 of the 1961 Act. As stated above, the expression "rectification of mistake from the record" occurs i…

M/S. Nandi Hospitality Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 296/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…9 CTR (SC) 90 has held that non- consideration of the decision of the jurisdictional high court/Supreme Court constitutes mistake apparent from record and is rectifiable within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT 295 ITR 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the scope of rectification powers u/s/254(2) of the Act, as follows: “Scope of the Power of Rectification 12. As stated above, in this case we are concerned with the application under section 254(2) of the 1961 Act. As stated above, the expression "rectification of mistake from the record" occurs in section…

M/S. Nandi Hospitality Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 295/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…9 CTR (SC) 90 has held that non- consideration of the decision of the jurisdictional high court/Supreme Court constitutes mistake apparent from record and is rectifiable within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT 295 ITR 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the scope of rectification powers u/s/254(2) of the Act, as follows: “Scope of the Power of Rectification 12. As stated above, in this case we are concerned with the application under section 254(2) of the 1961 Act. As stated above, the expression "rectification of mistake from the record" occurs in section…

M/S. Nandi Hospitality Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 294/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

…9 CTR (SC) 90 has held that non- consideration of the decision of the jurisdictional high court/Supreme Court constitutes mistake apparent from record and is rectifiable within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT 295 ITR 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the scope of rectification powers u/s/254(2) of the Act, as follows: “Scope of the Power of Rectification 12. As stated above, in this case we are concerned with the application under section 254(2) of the 1961 Act. As stated above, the expression "rectification of mistake from the record" occurs in section…

ACIT, Circle - 7, Kolkata vs. Smt. Bimala Devi Poddar, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 774/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 770/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- M/S.R.K.B.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Limited,.Respondent [Now Known As Ambuja Neotia Holdings P. Ltd.] Block-4B, 3Rd Floor, Ecospace Business Park, Premises No.11F/11, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Kolkata-700160 [Pan:Aabcr5623E] & I.T.A. No. 771/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- Smt. Gayatri Neotia,…….……..……………..Respondent (Legal Heir Of Late Suresh Kumar Neotia) 7/2, Queen’S Park, Ballygunge, Kolkata-19 [Pan:Abkpn2315E] & I.T.A. No. 772/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 1

…i Poddar CIT(A) the Tribunal should have given sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At this juncture we would like to mention the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court's observations made in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 466 which reads as under :- "The purpose behind enactment of Sec. 254(2) is based on the fundamental principle that no party appearing before the Tribunal should suffer on account of any mistake committed by the Tribunal. This fundamental principle has nothing to do with the inherent power of the Tribunal. One of the important reasons for giving the…

ACIT, Circle - 7, Kolkata vs. M/S. Govind Commercial Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 773/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 770/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- M/S.R.K.B.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Limited,.Respondent [Now Known As Ambuja Neotia Holdings P. Ltd.] Block-4B, 3Rd Floor, Ecospace Business Park, Premises No.11F/11, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Kolkata-700160 [Pan:Aabcr5623E] & I.T.A. No. 771/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- Smt. Gayatri Neotia,…….……..……………..Respondent (Legal Heir Of Late Suresh Kumar Neotia) 7/2, Queen’S Park, Ballygunge, Kolkata-19 [Pan:Abkpn2315E] & I.T.A. No. 772/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 1

…i Poddar CIT(A) the Tribunal should have given sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At this juncture we would like to mention the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court's observations made in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 466 which reads as under :- "The purpose behind enactment of Sec. 254(2) is based on the fundamental principle that no party appearing before the Tribunal should suffer on account of any mistake committed by the Tribunal. This fundamental principle has nothing to do with the inherent power of the Tribunal. One of the important reasons for giving the…

ACIT, Circle - 7, Kolkata vs. M/S. Likhami Commercial Company Ltd. Amalgamated Into Choicest Enterprises Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 772/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 770/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- M/S.R.K.B.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Limited,.Respondent [Now Known As Ambuja Neotia Holdings P. Ltd.] Block-4B, 3Rd Floor, Ecospace Business Park, Premises No.11F/11, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Kolkata-700160 [Pan:Aabcr5623E] & I.T.A. No. 771/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- Smt. Gayatri Neotia,…….……..……………..Respondent (Legal Heir Of Late Suresh Kumar Neotia) 7/2, Queen’S Park, Ballygunge, Kolkata-19 [Pan:Abkpn2315E] & I.T.A. No. 772/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 1

…i Poddar CIT(A) the Tribunal should have given sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At this juncture we would like to mention the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court's observations made in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 466 which reads as under :- "The purpose behind enactment of Sec. 254(2) is based on the fundamental principle that no party appearing before the Tribunal should suffer on account of any mistake committed by the Tribunal. This fundamental principle has nothing to do with the inherent power of the Tribunal. One of the important reasons for giving the…

D.C.I.T., Circle - 7(1), Kolkata vs. Smt. Gayatri Neotia Legal Heir of Late Suresh Kumar Neotia, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 771/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 770/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- M/S.R.K.B.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Limited,.Respondent [Now Known As Ambuja Neotia Holdings P. Ltd.] Block-4B, 3Rd Floor, Ecospace Business Park, Premises No.11F/11, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Kolkata-700160 [Pan:Aabcr5623E] & I.T.A. No. 771/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- Smt. Gayatri Neotia,…….……..……………..Respondent (Legal Heir Of Late Suresh Kumar Neotia) 7/2, Queen’S Park, Ballygunge, Kolkata-19 [Pan:Abkpn2315E] & I.T.A. No. 772/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 1

…i Poddar CIT(A) the Tribunal should have given sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At this juncture we would like to mention the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court's observations made in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 466 which reads as under :- "The purpose behind enactment of Sec. 254(2) is based on the fundamental principle that no party appearing before the Tribunal should suffer on account of any mistake committed by the Tribunal. This fundamental principle has nothing to do with the inherent power of the Tribunal. One of the important reasons for giving the…

ACIT, Circle - 7, Kolkata vs. M/S. R.K.B.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. Now Know As Ambuja Neotia Holdings P Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 770/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jan 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 770/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- M/S.R.K.B.K. Fiscal Services Pvt. Limited,.Respondent [Now Known As Ambuja Neotia Holdings P. Ltd.] Block-4B, 3Rd Floor, Ecospace Business Park, Premises No.11F/11, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Kolkata-700160 [Pan:Aabcr5623E] & I.T.A. No. 771/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax,.......Appellant Circle-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 -Vs.- Smt. Gayatri Neotia,…….……..……………..Respondent (Legal Heir Of Late Suresh Kumar Neotia) 7/2, Queen’S Park, Ballygunge, Kolkata-19 [Pan:Abkpn2315E] & I.T.A. No. 772/Kol/2010 Assessment Year: 2006-2007 1

…i Poddar CIT(A) the Tribunal should have given sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At this juncture we would like to mention the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court's observations made in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. reported in 295 ITR 466 which reads as under :- "The purpose behind enactment of Sec. 254(2) is based on the fundamental principle that no party appearing before the Tribunal should suffer on account of any mistake committed by the Tribunal. This fundamental principle has nothing to do with the inherent power of the Tribunal. One of the important reasons for giving the…

M/S. Nirmal Enviro Solutions Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1154/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarishri Panati Vidyanath Reddy Vs Acit, Circle - 4(3)(1) 10, 32Nd Main, 5Th Cross Bengaluru Dollars Colony, Btm Layout 1St Stage, Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Afmpr3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Nirmal Enviro Solutsions P. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle - 3(1)(1) 26, 9Th Cross, 16Th Main Bengaluru Btm Layout, 1St Stage Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Aadcn1064H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023 O R D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M.

For Appellant: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)

…219 CTR (SC) 90 has held that nonconsideration of the decision of the jurisdictional high court/Supreme Court constitutes mistake apparent from record and is rectifiable within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT 295 ITR 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the scope of rectification powers u/s/254(2) of the Act, as follows: “Scope of the Power of Rectification 12. As stated above, in this case we are concerned with the application under section 254(2) of the 1961 Act. As stated above, the expression "rectification of mistake from the record" occurs in section 15…

Sri Panati Vidyanath Reddy, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1148/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojarishri Panati Vidyanath Reddy Vs Acit, Circle - 4(3)(1) 10, 32Nd Main, 5Th Cross Bengaluru Dollars Colony, Btm Layout 1St Stage, Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Afmpr3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Nirmal Enviro Solutsions P. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle - 3(1)(1) 26, 9Th Cross, 16Th Main Bengaluru Btm Layout, 1St Stage Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Aadcn1064H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.01.2023 O R D E R Per: Chandra Poojari, A.M.

For Appellant: Miss Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 36Section 36(1)(va)

…219 CTR (SC) 90 has held that nonconsideration of the decision of the jurisdictional high court/Supreme Court constitutes mistake apparent from record and is rectifiable within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT 295 ITR 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the scope of rectification powers u/s/254(2) of the Act, as follows: “Scope of the Power of Rectification 12. As stated above, in this case we are concerned with the application under section 254(2) of the 1961 Act. As stated above, the expression "rectification of mistake from the record" occurs in section 15…

Subramanya Karthik, Bhadravathi vs. ITO, Ward- 1 & Tps, Shimoga

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1142/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

…219 CTR (SC) 90 has held that nonconsideration of the decision of the jurisdictional high court/Supreme Court constitutes mistake apparent from record and is rectifiable within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. In Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT 295 ITR 466, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the scope of rectification powers u/s/254(2) of the Act, as follows: “Scope of the Power of Rectification 12. As stated above, in this case we are concerned with the application under section 254(2) of the 1961 Act. As stated above, the expression "rectification of mistake from the record" occurs in section 15…