T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.

82 ITR 50Supreme Court of India1971#188 most cited

What is T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros. authority for?

A mistake apparent from the record under Section 154 must be an obvious and patent error, not one that requires a long and elaborate process of reasoning or where two opinions are conceivable. Rectification under Section 154 is not permissible for re-examining issues already considered or requiring detailed re-computation.

382

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

T.S. Balaram v. Volkart Bros. · 82 ITR 50 · Section 154 · mistake apparent from record · rectification · obvious and patent mistake · change of opinion · scope of rectification · long drawn reasoning

Sections most often in play

Section 154Section 143(3)Section 250Section 153ASection 69Section 263Section 245D(4)Section 245D(6B)

Issues it is cited on

mistake apparent from recordrectification u/s 154mistake apparent on recordsection 154change of opinionregular assessmentsection 15section 24section 234section 23income-tax officerprevious year

Judgments citing T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.

SOLAR TURBINES INTERNATIONAL COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 6710/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun30 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Solar Turbines Vs. Dcit, International Company International Taxation, (Singapore Branch Of Solar Cirrcle-2, Turbines International Dehradun Company, Usa), M/S. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Deloitte Centre, Anchorage Ii, #100/2, Richmond Road, Bangalore -560025 Pan: Aajcs3585J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.03.2026 Order

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 90(2)

…charge and education cess in question. We thus find merit in the Revenue’s vehement contentions that the CIT(A)’s impugned rectification order has rightly rejected the assessee’s application to the very effect going by T. S. Balaram, ITO v Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 40 (SC). And that the 4 | P a g e hon’ble jurisdictional high court in (2008) 216 CTR 86 (Uttaranchal) CIT Vs. Arthusa Offshore Co. has decided the very issue of surcharge and education cess “applicability” under the India -USA DTAA against the assessee and in the department’s favour as well. We thus see no merit in the assessee’s sole substantive gro…

DINESH CHAND JAIN,KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 692/LKW/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Dinesh Chand Jain, Vs. Dy. Cit, 7/189, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur- Central Circle-1, Kanpur 280002, U.P. Pan: Adbpj2732Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Add Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.04.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1.1 Because The Id. "Cit(A)" Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Withdrawing The Refund Of Interest Amounting To Rs. 8,20,163/-, Paid To The Assessee U/S 244A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On Excess Amount Of Self-Assessment Tax Paid U/S 140A Of The Act. 1.2 Because The View Taken By Id. "Cit(A)" While Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer Is Based On Misinterpretation Of The Provisions Of Clause (B) Of Sub-Section (1) Of Section 244A Of The Act, As Applicable At The Relevant Point Of Time. 2. Because, In Any Case & Without Prejudice To The Grounds Hereinfore, While Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Withdrawing The Interest Paid To The Assessee U/S 244A Of The Act, The Ld. "Cit(A)" Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Of Payment Of Interest On Excess Amount Paid U/S 140A Was Debatable In Nature & It Could Not Have Been Decided By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 154 Of The Act As The Same Did Not Constitute A Mistake Apparent From The Record.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Add CIT DR
Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 240Section 244Section 244ASection 244A(1)(a)Section 244A(1)(b)

…. So the condition precedent to passing any order under section 154 is that there should be a mistake apparent from the record. Mistake apparent from the record has been judiciously defined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram vs. M/s Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50 (SC) to mean a mistake obvious and patent and not something that could be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be, conceivably two opinions. The question that is therefore, to be addressed is whether there was a mistake apparent from the record in granting of interest to the assessee on the amount refunded i…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1098/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

…rightly held so far as the issue of cannot be subject mater of proceedings under section 154 of the Act. At this juncture, it will be beneficial to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows : "From what has been said above, it is clear that the question whether section 17(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was applicable to the case of the first respondent is not free from doubt. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that question there can be…

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1027/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

…rightly held so far as the issue of cannot be subject mater of proceedings under section 154 of the Act. At this juncture, it will be beneficial to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows : "From what has been said above, it is clear that the question whether section 17(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was applicable to the case of the first respondent is not free from doubt. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that question there can be…

STERLING COURT F WING CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7122/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…tion under section 143(1) was uncalled for and the same merits to be rectified under the provisions of section 154 of the Act. Reliance was placed on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, Income-tax Officer V/s Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) [05-08-1971], according to which the AO is required to correct a mistake apparent on record which is obvious and patent on record. 12. On a thoughtful consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the case law relied upon by the assessee, we find substance in the contentions raised by ld. AR that: (i) The deduction under section…

MAHESH SUNNY ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7627/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 7627/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Mahesh Sunny Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, L-322, Mahipalpur Extension, South Circle-16(1), Delhi, New Delhi-110037 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccm9502A Assessee By: Sh. Ravi Pratap Mal, Adv. & Sh. Uma Shankar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Bengaluru’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1082129793(1) Dated 30.10.2025, In Proceedings U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Ravi Pratap Mal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…ven the fact that the learned Assessing Officer had duly considered the instant ESI/PF issue in his regular assessment, revisiting the very binding by way of section 154 rectification is no more permissible going by T. S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 40 (SC). The impugned rectification order dated 26.09.2022 is hereby reversed therefore. 6. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/12/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 23/12/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*…

PIYUSH GARG,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CC-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1590/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271A

…uments, or detailed examination of facts and law. Further, it is an admitted position (as noted by the Ld. CIT(A) himself) that the applicability of section 271AAC(1) is a debatable issue. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) and CIT v. Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. (228 ITR 463, SC) has categorically laid down that issues which are debatable cannot be rectified under section 154. Thus, the very assumption of jurisdiction by the AO under section 154 was bad in law. If the issue is debatable and requires discussion of law or facts, it falls outside the scope of section 154.…

ASSOCIATED GLOBAL FINANCE LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1),, KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2139/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 250

…ave gone through the documents before us. We have also perused the case laws cited by the Ld. AR. Right at the outset, it deserves to be mentioned that notwithstanding the merit of the case we are easily reminded about the case of Volkart Brothers reported in 82 ITR 50 (SC), which is the locus classicus on the subject of rectifiable matters, in which it has been held that “a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions.” From the mere fact that the Ld. CI…

RAVI RAMBABU,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 651/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 651/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Ravi Rambabu, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Pan: Abspr3702P Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 17/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Rectification Order Dated 28.03.2025 Passed By The Cit (Appeals) Under Section 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act"), Dated 28.03.2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Cit(A) Disposing Of The Assessee’S Appeal, Vide His Order Dated 29.01.2025. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 154Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No. 651/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Ravi Rambabu, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Hyderabad. of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), PAN: ABSPR3702P Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA राज" व "ारा/Revenue by: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing: 17/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / ORDER PER. RAVISH SOOD, J…

OMEGA BROADCAST PRIVATE LTD,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4952/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154

…he assessment order for the purposes carrying out the detailed exercise of re-computing the assessee’s depreciation/additional depreciation, wherein, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TS Balram, ITO vs Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) it was held that such rectification was beyond the scope of section 154 of the Act. 7. Then the ld. Counsel has also demonstrated before us by relying the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs BSES Yamuna Powers LLD./BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. 2010 (8) TMI 58 (Delhi)/[2013] 358 ITR 47, DCIT-1(3)(1), Addl. CIT, Range-1…

OMEGA BROADCAST PRIVATE LTD,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4951/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154

…he assessment order for the purposes carrying out the detailed exercise of re-computing the assessee’s depreciation/additional depreciation, wherein, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TS Balram, ITO vs Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) it was held that such rectification was beyond the scope of section 154 of the Act. 7. Then the ld. Counsel has also demonstrated before us by relying the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs BSES Yamuna Powers LLD./BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. 2010 (8) TMI 58 (Delhi)/[2013] 358 ITR 47, DCIT-1(3)(1), Addl. CIT, Range-1…

OMEGA BROADCAST PRIVATE LTD,NOIDA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4950/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154

…he assessment order for the purposes carrying out the detailed exercise of re-computing the assessee’s depreciation/additional depreciation, wherein, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TS Balram, ITO vs Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) it was held that such rectification was beyond the scope of section 154 of the Act. 7. Then the ld. Counsel has also demonstrated before us by relying the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs BSES Yamuna Powers LLD./BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd. 2010 (8) TMI 58 (Delhi)/[2013] 358 ITR 47, DCIT-1(3)(1), Addl. CIT, Range-1…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 1253/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

…categorized as a “mistake apparent from the record" to be rectified through an Order passed u/s 154 of the Act. 5. In this regard, reliance is placed on the following decisions: 1.1. In the case of T.S. Balaram, Income-tax Officer vs. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC)[05-08-1971], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that - Section 17(1) of 1922 Act can apply to a 'person'. The expression 'person' is defined in section 2(9) of 1922 Act to include a HUF and a local authority. Unless a firm can be considered as a 'person', section 17(1) of the 1922 Act cannot govern the assessment of the assessee-firm. In the 1961…

PRAKASHBHAI MANCHHARAM MISTRY,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 132/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.132/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Prakash Manchharam Mistry, Vs. The Ito, 57, Viramnagar Society, Dabholi, Ward – 3(2)(1), Surat - 395004 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aqtpm1279Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ketan Jagirdar, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 50C

…the appeal was against rectification order of AO, passed u/s 154 of the Act. As per the mandate of section 154 of the Act, only mistake apparent from the record can be rectified by the AO. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balram vs. Volkart Brothers, 82 ITR 50 (SC) held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something, which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd., 228 ITR 463 (SC) held that a point which was not examined…

BAANI LANDBASE PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5944/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5944/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Baani Landbase Pvt Ltd., Dcit, Corporate One, Ground Floor, Vs. Circle-4(2), Plot No.5, District Center, Jasola, Central Revenue Building, Delhi. I.P. Estate, Delhi. Pan No.Aadcb0237E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 156Section 292B

…as placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Keshri Metal Pvt. Ltd. (104 Taxman 360) (SC). Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. M/s Volkart Bros. (82 ITR 50) (SC) held that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not some which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Hero Cycles 4 Pvt.…

M/S. 9TH STREET ARCHITECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1463/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 154Section 250Section 69A

…A No. 976/Bang/2022, ITAT Bangalore) to support the view that when the source of income is not explained, such income is taxable under deeming provisions. On examining the case laws cited by the assessee, the CIT(A) held that the reliance on Volkart Brothers (82 ITR 50) and Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange (305 ITR 227) was misplaced, as those cases dealt with situations of interpretative ambiguity, whereas in the present case, the issue was settled by the Supreme Court. The reliance on Hussain Mohideen Ibrahim Sha was also held to be unhelpful to the assessee since even that decision emphasized the requirement to…

BUL MSK INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the matter is set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A) and both the appeals of appellant are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4108/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Ms. Sachi R. Purswami
Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…r to respond to the notices issued. Ld. CIT(A), for both the assessment years has taken up these petitions under section 154 of the Act and after considering the facts and also placing reliance on the decisions of T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), and Mepco Industries Ltd. (185 Taxman 409) (SC) held that a debatable issue cannot come within the purview section 154 of the Act and moreover Ld. CIT(A) passed this order after thoughtful consideration has upheld the imposition of penalty. Since there was no mistake which is apparent from record from the order of Ld. CIT(A), the same as reje…

BUL MSK INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF TAX CIRCLE 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the matter is set aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A) and both the appeals of appellant are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4107/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Ms. Sachi R. Purswami
Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…r to respond to the notices issued. Ld. CIT(A), for both the assessment years has taken up these petitions under section 154 of the Act and after considering the facts and also placing reliance on the decisions of T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), and Mepco Industries Ltd. (185 Taxman 409) (SC) held that a debatable issue cannot come within the purview section 154 of the Act and moreover Ld. CIT(A) passed this order after thoughtful consideration has upheld the imposition of penalty. Since there was no mistake which is apparent from record from the order of Ld. CIT(A), the same as reje…

SURBHI ANAND,SOUTH DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/AGR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2023-24] Surbhi Anand, Acit, C-155, Basement, Lajpat Circle-1(1)(1), Nagar-2, South Delhi, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Sanjay Place, Delhi-110024 Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282002 Pan-Acypa6580B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sahib P. Satsangi, Ca Respondent By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 Order, Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 145Section 154Section 193

…st the subsequent order passed u/s 154/143(3) by CPC. In this context it can be observed that the scope and ambit of power of rectification u/s 154 came to be considered and decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). It was held in that case that the power of rectification of mistakes under section 154 of the Act is a very limited power which is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. Besides, it must be a mistake which is patent on the face of the record and does not call for detailed investigation of the facts or require an ela…

MCM DEVELOPERS,AURANGABAD vs. DCIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

ITA 362/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 154Section 269SSection 270ASection 271DSection 40A(3)

…hold that the Assessing 13 Officer has adopted one of the possible legal view in the original assessment order & therefore in the light of Judgements passed by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of T.S. Balaram, Income-tax Officer vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), rectification u/s 154 of the IT Act is not permissible. Hon’ble Supreme court in the above case T.S. Balaram, Income-tax Officer vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), dismissed the departmental appeal filed by the revenue & the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the IT Act was held to be wrong. The relevant p…

Showing 1–20 of 382 · Page 1 of 20

...