CIT v. Lakshmi Prasad Lahkar

220 ITR 100High Court1996#23694 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,356 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 154 Section 116 Section 139(4)Section 143 Section 147 Section 155 Section 156

Judgments citing CIT v. Lakshmi Prasad Lahkar

Aditya Cement, Behror vs. ITO, Behror

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1491/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68Section 72(1)

…er than the matter which has been so considered and decided.] Further courts also cited that: Mistake means commission that is not designed and which is obvious and something which has no two opinions or which is debatable. [CIT V Lakshmi Prasad Lahkar (1996) 220 ITR 100 (GAU)] Addition of debatable nature cannot be subject of Section 154 rectification. [ACIT VS Shri Punit J. Patel (ITAT Mumbai)] 1 That the AO has also filed Appeal before Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur against the order of CIT (Appeal) but not raised any ground on such issue which has been 7 Aditya Cement, Alwar now rectified This show the bad intention of…

Mahesh Ram Vittal, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1078/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Chaugule, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251

…/2017 and the assessee furnished reply dated 22/11/2017 giving reference of the Hon’ble Supreme Court order in the case of TS Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart Brother [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) and the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lakshmi Prasad Lahkar [1996] 220 ITR 100 Gauhati. The assessee explained that the sec. 154 of the Act cannot be invoked on debatable issue. The submission of the assessee were examined by the AO and the AO referred to sec. 5(1) ( c ) of the Act and noted that the assessee is liable to offer global income received in the assessment year 2014-15 and the assessee also claimed foreign tax c…

Bhawani Chem, Jaipur vs. Assesing Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 279/JPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kanodia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 116Section 143(1)Section 154

…Volkart Bros. Ors. 82 ITR 50(SC) Mistake must be obvious and apparent. - not something which can be established by a long M/S. BHAWANI CHEM VS ITO drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be two opinions. 2 CIT vs Lakshmi Prasad Lahkar [11996) 220 ITR 100 Gauhati)]- Mistake means commission that is not designed and which is obvious and something which has no two opinions or which is debatable. C. Ram Lal Raivadiua Vs. CIT 104 CTR 403 (Calcutta High Court):- A highly debatable question cannot be made amenable to the rectification jurisdiction." 5.1.3 The intimation order was passed u/s. 143(1) on 3…