Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sidhramappa AndannappaManvi v. Commissioner of Income-tax come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 154, Section 139(1), Section 115JB, Section 144C(1), Section 153A.

Sidhramappa AndannappaManvi v. Commissioner of Income-tax

Q: How many judgments cite Sidhramappa AndannappaManvi v. Commissioner of Income-tax?

21 judgments on BharatTax cite Sidhramappa AndannappaManvi v. Commissioner of Income-tax (21 ITR 333), spanning 2015 to 2026.

21 ITR 333High Court1952#5461 most cited

What is Sidhramappa AndannappaManvi v. Commissioner of Income-tax authority for?

A debatable point of law or a complex process of reasoning, where two opinions are conceivable, does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record that can be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sidhramappa Andannappa Manvi · Section 154 · mistake apparent from record · error apparent on face of record · debatable point of law · Income-tax Act 1961 · rectification

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 154 Section 139(1)Section 115JB Section 144C(1)Section 153A Section 153C Section 234A

Issues it is cited on

section 17(1)rectification u/s 154 mistake apparent from record section 17 section 194c income-tax officer section 154 section 115jb section 19 section 139(1)section 153c scrutiny assessment

Judgments citing Sidhramappa AndannappaManvi v. Commissioner of Income-tax

Aristo Pharmaceuticals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 6678/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Kumar Rastogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115WSection 154

…on 154 of the Income Tax Act. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “T.S. Balaram ITO vs. Volkat Brothers” and of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “Sidhramappa Andannappa Manvi vs. CIT” 21 ITR 333. 7. In view of the above, the enhancement of assessable fringe benefits by the AO in the garb of rectification of original assessment order cannot be held to be justified and the same is accordingly set aside. ITA No.6679/M/2012 for A.Y. 2008-09 8. Since the facts and issues involved in this appeal are identical to the appeal of the assessee i.e.…