M. K. Venkatachalam, ITO v. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd.

34 ITR 143Supreme Court of India1958#7580 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2023.

Judgments citing M. K. Venkatachalam, ITO v. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd.

SHRI GOPAL SONI ,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BIKANER

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 383/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Gopal Soni Prop Vs. The Acit, Circle – 1 Durga Silver Home Bikaner. Katla Chowk Nokha Rajasthan. Bikaner-334803, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aemps5097M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Bikaner Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT -DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 234CSection 69

…'mistake apparent from the record". Such an order cannot be the subject matter of rectification. Reliance was also placed by the Revenue on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M. K. Venkatachalam, ITO v. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., 34 ITR 143 (SC), where the Court observed that if a mistake of fact apparent from the record of the assessment order could be rectified, there was no reason why a mistake of law which was glaring and obvious could not be similarly rectified. The Court in that case observed, that though prima facie it might appear somewhat strange that an order which was good…

M/S. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT-(TDS), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 323/CTK/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 Grid Corporation Of Orissa Grid Corporation Of Orissa Vs. Acit (Tds), Acit (Tds), Ltd., Ltd., Gridco Gridco House, House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janapath, Bhubaneswar. Janapath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain/P.Venugopal Rao /P.Venugopal Rao, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, 1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.7.2019 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.0035/17-18 For The Assessment Year The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. S/Shri Ved Jain & P.Venugopal Rao, S/Shri Ved Jain & P.Venugopal Rao, Ld Ar Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain/P.Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam

Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)

…essing Officer. Since there was a difference of opinion between the two Members, the matter was referred to the Third Member. The Third member held in para-6 that the Supreme Court in M.K. Venkatachalam, ITO vs. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1958) 34 ITR 143 held that for finding out whether there is a mistake apparent from the record, the authority has to look at the amended law and not the law that existed at the time of making the original record. If an order is plainly or obviously inconsistent with the specific and clear provision, as retrospectively amended, there is a mistake apparent from reco…

M/S. SHARADA PAPER COMPANY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11 (4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1547/PUN/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1547/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S.Sharada Paper Company, The Income Tax Officer, 436/8, Narayan Peth, Vs Ward-11(4), Pune. Maharashtra – 411030. Pan: Aaffs 1470 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune For The Assessment Year 2007-08 Dated 18.07.2019 Arising Out Of Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.03.2013. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal -8) Has Erred In Confirming The Withdrawal Of Claim For The Carry Forward Of Loss For A.Y. 2003-04, A.Y. 2004-05, A.Y.2005-06 & A.Y.2006- 07 Without Verifying The Facts. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal -8) Has Erred In Confirming The Rectification Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 154 & Thereby Withdrawing Loss Allowed In The Assessment Made Under Section 143(3) Of Income Taxact,1961 Without Appreciating The Fact That This Is Not Mistake Apparent From Records & Hence Cannot Be Rectified Under 154 Of The Act.

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 44A

…the record of the assessment order can be rectified under section 154, there is no reason why a mistake of law which is glaring and obvious, cannot be similarly rectified. (In this connection see M.K. Venkatachalam, ITO v. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1958] 34 ITR 143 (SC). Similarly, when a decision of the Supreme Court regarding construction of a particular statutory provisions comes to the notice of an ITO, it constitutes information as envisaged by section 147 of the Act. In this connection, reference may be made to Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. CIT[1959] 35 ITR 1 (SC), CWT v. Imperial Tobacco Co. of India L…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-I, KOLKATA vs. M/S. ISPAT INDUSTRIES LIMITED

ITAT/165/2011HC Calcutta04 May 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 4Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv.

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 260A

…OD-7 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/165/2011 IA No:GA/1/2011 (Old No.:GA/1712/2011) GA/2/2011 (OLD No.GA/1713/2011) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA – I, KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. ISPAT INDUSTRIES LIMITED BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 4TH MAY, 2022. Appearance:- Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv. …for Appellant Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv. … for respon…

S K G REFRACTORIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 342/HYD/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2006-07 Skg Refractories Limited, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500063. Income Tax, Circle 3(2), Pan : Aadcs4040G. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Samuel Nagadesi. Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.02.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri Samuel NagadesiFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam

Section 139(5)Section 143Section 154Section 154(1)(b)Section 176Section 43BSection 43B(5)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member AND Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2006-07 SKG Refractories Limited, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Hyderabad – 500063. Income Tax, Circle 3(2), PAN : AADCS4040G. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Samuel Nagadesi. Revenue by: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. Date of hearing: 16.02.2022 Date of pronouncement: 18.02.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (A…

RAMACHANDRAN A. POTHI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 24 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7268/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 7268/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) Shri Ramachandran A Pothi The Jt. Commissioner Of 513, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Income Tax, Circle 24(2) फनाभ/ 4 Th Industrial Estate Andheri West, Room No.504, Floor, Mumbai-400 053 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aacpp8620K अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Rushabh Mehta, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Sr. Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08.10.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-36, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Mumbai-36/11494/2016-17 Vide Dated 30.10.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 24(2), Mumbai (In Short Jcit/ Ao) For The A.Y. Shri Ramachandran A Pothi; Ay 09-10 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 29.11.2011 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…s made by the AO and due to typing error penalty remained uninitiated with respect to the first issue of correction expense. 4.1.6 It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. K. Venktachalam /ITO Vs. Bombay Dyeing and M.S.G Company Ltd. (1958) 34 ITR 143 that if a mistake of fact apparent from the record of assessment order can be rectified, there is no reason why the mistake of law which is glaring and obvious cannot be similarly rectified. It is an accepted legal position that the power to rectify the order of assessment conferred upon the AO is to ensure that injustice to the assessee or to the…

GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 531/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 531/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Global Institute Of Technology Cuke D.C.I.T., Vs. Society, Central Circle-3, D-91, Ambabari, Jhotwara Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aaatg 3217 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv, Jaipur Dated 01/04/2019 Passed U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2014-15. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee:

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 154Section 36(1)(va)

…T(A) cannot pass rectification order u/s 154 to deny a benefit already held allowable. The following case is quoted in support – 13 ITA 531/JP/2019_ M/s Global Institute of Technology Society Vs DCIT Venkatachalam M.K. ITO V Bombay Dying & Mfg. Co. Ltd. 1958 34 ITR 143 SC Obvious mistake of law cannot be rectified under section 154, while mistake of fact apparent from record can be rectified.” 8. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR has relied on the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 9. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the ju…

MANJU CHOUDHARY,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-38, KOLKATA

In the result, we cancel this order and allow the appeal of the assessee

ITA 893/KOL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194ASection 197Section 250Section 40

…hargeable to tax. The mistake is apparent from records because mistake of law is also a mistake apparent from records. It has been held by Apex court that the error may be either an error of fact or an error of law. ITO V. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1958) 34 ITR 143 (SC). Moreover there is no scope for two opinions in application of the Section 40(a)(ia) because this is overriding. The AO overlooked to apply the mandatory provision and the lapse comes under rectification. (CIT v. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd.) (1998) (233 ITR 700) (Ker).” 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal challenging both the jur…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5238/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

…onal Delhi High Court, tantamount to a mistake apparent on record which must have been rectified u/s 154 of the Act by following the judgment and for which necessary directions must be issued: a) M. K. Venkatachalam, ITO vs Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd [1958] 34 ITR 143 (SC). b) L.HridayNarain vs ITO [1970] 78 ITR 26 (SC) c) CIT vs K. N. Oil Industries [1983] 142 ITR 13 (MP) d) NavNirman(P) Ltd vs CIT [1988] 174 ITR 574 (MP) e) KilKotagiri Tea & Coffee Estates Co Ltd vs ITAT [1988] 174 ITR 579 (Ker) f) CIT vs ArunaLuthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 (Punj. &Har.) g) CIT vs Ram Lal Babu Lal [1998] 148 CTR (Punj. &Har.) 643…

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANANT RAJ LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5237/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

ANANT RAJ LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 4736/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

ROLTA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2125/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh & Assessment Year-2005-06

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 245Section 245D

…parent from the record" occurring in section 154(1) of the Act has a wider content than the expression "error apparent on the face of the record" occurring in Order XL VII, rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure. In ITO vs. Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (1958) 34 ITR 143 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the former covers all mistakes discoverable from a perusal of the whole evidence in the case, or from an omission to apply certain provision of the Act to the case, or mistake due to an overlooking of certain aspects of the case, or a mistake arising on account of a wrong construction of any provisions…

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

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

ITA 5247/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 115JSection 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Before S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 5247/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2005-06) Reliance Industries Limited Asst. CIT 3rd Floor Vs. Large Tax Payer Unit Maker Chamber-IV 29th Floor, Centre No. 222, Nariman Point 1, World Trade Centre Mumbai-400 021. Cuffe Parade Mumbai-400 005. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No.AAACR5055K Assessee by Shri Arvind Sonde Department by Shri A.K. Srivastava Date of Hearing 10.3.2016 Date of Pronouncement 03.6.2016 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, AM :- The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against t…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. MR PIYUSH GUPTA,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3879/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg:Asstt. Yr: 2008-09 Acit, Circle 48(1), Vs. Piyush Gupta, New Delhi. 8, Green Avenue, Abhey Khand Ii, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad. Pan: Aatpg 5012 B ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Rakhi Bimal Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri Gagan Kumar Ca Date Of Hearing : 10/05/2016. Date Of Order : 13/05/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Ms. Rakhi Bimal Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Gagan Kumar CA

Section 115WSection 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 142Section 154Section 49Section 72Section 73Section 74

…been given effect to while computing income, then it amounts to a mistake apparent on the face of record, rectifiable u/s 154. In this regard ld. counsel has referred to following decisions: - M.K. Venkatachalm v. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1958) 34 ITR 143 (SC); - Income-tax Officer vs. Asok Textiles Ltd. (1961) 41 ITR 732 (SC); and - CIT Vs. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 700 (Kerala). 12.1. Ld. counsel has also referred to CBDT Circular no. 14(XL-35), wherein it has been, inter alia, observed as under: “(3) Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-X

The appeal of the revenue is allowed with no order as to costs

ITA/349/2011HC Delhi08 Nov 2011

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 260ASection 80H

…of the Supreme Court was a glaring and obvious mistake of law. In the circumstances, the case is covered by the ratio of the ruling of the Supreme Court in M.K.Venkatachalam, Income Tax Officer and Anr. Vs. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1958) 34 ITR 143 where it was observed that a glaring and obvious mistake by law can be corrected under Section 154. In Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC) the Supreme Court held that where, after the Tribunal rendered its decision on appeal, a miscellaneous application was filed by the assess…