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

Itek Packz, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 995/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

…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…

Mass Fab Technologies, Bangalore vs. CIT(Appeals), Bangalore

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

ITA 1079/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

…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…

K.J. Khilanani Education Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, the additional grounds raised by the assessee on the reopening of assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act is allowed

ITA 35/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 35 & 36/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri N. M. Porwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 35 & 36/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09) K. J. Khilnani Education ITO (E) - 1(4), बिधम/ Trust, Mumbai Pin- Mori Road, Mahim Vs. Mumbai-400 016 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAATK3073F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri N. M. Porwal, AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Brajendra Kumar, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 04.02.2021 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11.02.2021 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER S…

ACIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. The New Piece Goods Bazar Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenues’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6496/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (DR)For Respondent: Sh. B.V. Jhaveri (Adv.)
Section 143(3)Section 22Section 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I. T. A. No. 6496/Mum/2017 [Assessment Year: 2014-15] Asst. CIT 4(3)(1) vs. The New Piece Goods Bazar Co. R.No. 649, 6th Floor, Ltd., 2nd Floor, Office Gally, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400020 M.J. Market, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai [PAN: AAACT 1700F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (DR) Respondent by: Sh. B.V. Jhaveri (Adv.) Date of Hearing: 03.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 25.09.2020 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Revenue d…

Atos India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the stands partly allowed

ITA 1806/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Akhter
Section 143(3)Section 350

…changed by application and other due course and the issue of filing of revised return, learned counsel of the assessee submitted that these might have been done. 13. Upon careful consideration we find that honourable Supreme Court in the case of Honda CIEL (295 ITR 466) has held that non-consideration of the order of the ITAT in assessee’s own case can render the order of another bench of the ITAT containing mistake apparent from record. Since the above said order of the ITAT in assessee’s own case has not been reversed by the honourable High Court, we duly follow the aforesaid order and hold that since the fac…

Mitsubishi Electric Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 312/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I. Bara, CIT-DR
Section 254

…ely applies on the facts of the case in hand. 8. It would be apt to refer to the conclusions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court full bench in the case of Lachman Dass Bhatia Hingwala (supra) :- (A) The decision rendered in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 466 by the apex court is an authority for the proposition that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under certain circumstances can recall its own order and there is no absolute prohibition. (B) In view of the law laid down in Honda Siel Products Ltd. [2—7] 295 ITR 466 by the apex court, the decisions rendered by this court in K. L. Bhatia [1990] 182 I…

M/S. Oil Industry Development Board, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4664/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

…s Ld. CIT(A) has erred in overriding the covered matter thus devoid of principles of natural justice. It is pertinent to mention here that petition u/s 154 placing reliance on apex court judgment in the case of M/s Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 295 ITR 466, has already been moved on 14-07-2014 and its disposal by Ld. CIT(A) is awaited however to respect limitations in filling appeal , form 36 alongwith grounds of appeal have been completed and filed before your honours. 7. That with complete disregard to judicial pronouncements holding that penalty proceedings should be an independent fact finding…

M/S. Oil Industry Development Board, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4663/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

…s Ld. CIT(A) has erred in overriding the covered matter thus devoid of principles of natural justice. It is pertinent to mention here that petition u/s 154 placing reliance on apex court judgment in the case of M/s Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 295 ITR 466, has already been moved on 14-07-2014 and its disposal by Ld. CIT(A) is awaited however to respect limitations in filling appeal , form 36 alongwith grounds of appeal have been completed and filed before your honours. 7. That with complete disregard to judicial pronouncements holding that penalty proceedings should be an independent fact finding…

M/S. Oil Industry Development Board, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4662/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 154Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 36

…s Ld. CIT(A) has erred in overriding the covered matter thus devoid of principles of natural justice. It is pertinent to mention here that petition u/s 154 placing reliance on apex court judgment in the case of M/s Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 295 ITR 466, has already been moved on 14-07-2014 and its disposal by Ld. CIT(A) is awaited however to respect limitations in filling appeal , form 36 alongwith grounds of appeal have been completed and filed before your honours. 7. That with complete disregard to judicial pronouncements holding that penalty proceedings should be an independent fact finding…

Hasmukh I Gandhi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee’s stand dismissed

ITA 5006/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 147

…sing the order by the ITAT Kolkata and ITAT Delhi Benches. This is not disputed by the ld. Counsel of the assessee. The same were not considered in those tribunal decisions. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466 (SC) has held that non consideration of the Co- ordinate Bench decision can render an order of the ITAT liable to mistake apparent from the record. Moreover, we note that appeal against tribunal decision in Dhupelia group case (supra) is lying before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has not yet rever…

Chintan H Gandhi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee’s stand dismissed

ITA 2798/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 147

…sing the order by the ITAT Kolkata and ITAT Delhi Benches. This is not disputed by the ld. Counsel of the assessee. The same were not considered in those tribunal decisions. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466 (SC) has held that non consideration of the Co- ordinate Bench decision can render an order of the ITAT liable to mistake apparent from the record. Moreover, we note that appeal against tribunal decision in Dhupelia group case (supra) is lying before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has not yet rever…

Hasmukh I Gandhi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee’s stand dismissed

ITA 2795/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri P. J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 147

…sing the order by the ITAT Kolkata and ITAT Delhi Benches. This is not disputed by the ld. Counsel of the assessee. The same were not considered in those tribunal decisions. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466 (SC) has held that non consideration of the Co- ordinate Bench decision can render an order of the ITAT liable to mistake apparent from the record. Moreover, we note that appeal against tribunal decision in Dhupelia group case (supra) is lying before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has not yet rever…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Crn Investments P. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2662/CHNY/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2662/Mds/2004 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1996-97 The Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. Crn Investments P. Ltd., Income Tax, V. 10, Karpagambal Nagar, Company Circle – I(3), Luz, Chennai – 4. Chennai – 600 034. Pan : Aaacc3114A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per N.R.S. Ganesan:

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate
Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी िड.एस. सु"दर "सह, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 2662/Mds/2004 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1996-97 The Asstt. Commissioner of M/s. CRN Investments P. Ltd., Income Tax, v. 10, Karpagambal Nagar, Company Circle – I(3), Luz, Chennai – 4. Chennai – 600 034. PAN : AAACC3114A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT ""यथ" क" ओर…

Huntsman International (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2161/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Mr. Bandish Soparkar (AR)For Respondent: Mr. B.C.S. Naik (CIT-DR)
Section 253Section 254(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35DSection 43B

…ature. M/s. Huntsman International (India) Pvt. Ltd. 3.2 The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions of CIT v. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd (312 ITR 254) and Honda Siel Power Products Ltd (295 ITR 466). 3.3 The learned CIT(A) erred in concluding that the appellant did not originally claim the aforesaid foreign exchange loss in its return of income and accordingly, erred in applying the ratio of the decision of Goetz India Ltd vs CIT (284 ITR 323). GROUND NO. 4: Disallowance of share issue expenditure 4.1 The learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing…

The commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s Bhagyanagar Studios

ITTA/272/2015HC Telangana29 Feb 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY