T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.

82 ITR 50Supreme Court of India1971#194 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 367,164 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.

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Nahata, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-6(1)(1) Represented by Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 41/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 801ASection 801BSection 80ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2017-18 M/s Jitendra Kumar Nahata, Vs. The Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax No.144, Samriddhi, 11th B Cross, (OSD), Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore, Circle-6(1)(1), Mahalakshmipuram Layout S.O, Bengaluru. Bangalore-560 086. PAN – AAOPN 9291 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, C.A Revenue by : Shri. Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 10.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 13.05.2022 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Ac…

Novell Software Development (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 319/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

…iance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of K. Parameswaran Pillai v. AITO reported in (1955) 28 ITR 885 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Volkart Brothers reported in (1971) 82 ITR 50 . Therefore, the TP adjustment determined vide order passed under Section 154 of the Act is unsustainable. Page 48 of 53 IT(TP)A Nos. 280 & 319/Bang/2016 15.5. Secondly, the action of the Ld.TPO in determining the adjustment as is done, is erroneous. The TPO failed to furnish the search process adopted, the filters applied and the final list of co…

ITO Ward - 5(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Novell Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 280/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

…iance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of K. Parameswaran Pillai v. AITO reported in (1955) 28 ITR 885 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Volkart Brothers reported in (1971) 82 ITR 50 . Therefore, the TP adjustment determined vide order passed under Section 154 of the Act is unsustainable. Page 48 of 53 IT(TP)A Nos. 280 & 319/Bang/2016 15.5. Secondly, the action of the Ld.TPO in determining the adjustment as is done, is erroneous. The TPO failed to furnish the search process adopted, the filters applied and the final list of co…

Al;Lied Agencies, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(5), New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 7508/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrir.K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhrym/S. Allied Agencies, Vs. Ito, 9, Okhla Industrial Estate, Ward-29(5), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabfa3256G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ShriGautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. K. Pandey, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250(6)Section 40Section 46A

…the authorities below, however could not controvert the factual position with regard to debatable issue. 6. We have given thoughtful consideration to the issue involved in the instant case. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of TS Balaram Vs. VolkartBrothers 82 ITR 50 (SC) clearly held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mista…

Vinodkumar S Totla, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-7(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 11/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 1Section 154Section 250Section 26Section 54Section 54F

…se, in our view, it is first imperative to we would first dwell upon the issue, whether in the instant set of facts, an order can be passed u/s 154 of the Act to correct a ‘mistake apparent from record’. In the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Vokart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50, the Supreme Court, while considering the scope of section 154, categorically laid down that mistake apparent on the record must be obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. Supreme Court further held that a decision on a debatab…

Atul Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT (OSD), Range-1, Ahmedabad

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 2406/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Apr 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Took Us Through The Chronology Of Events Leading To The Rectification Order Passed U/S. 154 Of The Act ,Which Was Carried In Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Dismissed The Same & Against Which The Assessee Has Come Up In Appeal Before Us. Ld. Counsel For The

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 250(6)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

…in support of the said contention was relied upon as under: (i) Royal Cushion Vinyal vs. CIT [2009] 180 Taxman.com208 (Bombay) (ii) Dinosaur Steels Ltd. vs. JCIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 554 (SC) (iii) Volkart Borthers vs. T.S.Balaram, Income-tax Officer [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) (iv) Hirsh Bracelet India (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2019] 109 taxmann.com 50 (Banalore – Trib.) (v) CIT vs. SRA Systems Ltd. [2021] 129 taxmann.com 118 (Madras) I.T.A No. 2406/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2005-06 Page No 9 Atul Ltd. vs. DCIT 10. Ld.DR however relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 11. We have heard both the parties, gone through the order of the…

Rekha R. Shukla, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 234/SRT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.147 & 234/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rekha R. Shokla, Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, G-3, Deepanjali Appartment, Sai Bangalore. Krupa Society, No.4-Airport Road, Nani Daman. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bgyps2563M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.150/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) Riddhi Siddhi Prints Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, 75-1 & 75-2, Gidc, Pandesara, Bangalore. Surat-394221, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccr7050C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) Chinco Textiles, Vs. The Acit, Cpc, Plot No.104, Road No.7, Gidc Bangalore. Sachin, Surat-394230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefc0028N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.201 & 202/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19 To 2019-20) Shree Laxminarayan Synthetics, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Plot No.275/2, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat. Surat, Gujarat-394221. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfs5319N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.224 & 225/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 To 2019-20) Tirupati Prints, Vs. The Adit, Cpc, S. No.207, Plot No.37 To 40, Bangalore. Bamroli Taluka: Choryasi, Surat-394221, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabft4240J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 36

…t. Thus, even when the amendment is made on retrospective basis, the Honorable Supreme Court has clearly held that no adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act should be made.  It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balram vs.Volkart Brother 82 ITR 50 (SC), that: “The Income- tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that question there can be no two opinions. It was not open to the Income-tax Officer to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act in a proceeding under section 154 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961”.  The explanatory statement in respect of substitution of sec…

Tirupati Prints, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 225/SRT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.147 & 234/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rekha R. Shokla, Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, G-3, Deepanjali Appartment, Sai Bangalore. Krupa Society, No.4-Airport Road, Nani Daman. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bgyps2563M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.150/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) Riddhi Siddhi Prints Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, 75-1 & 75-2, Gidc, Pandesara, Bangalore. Surat-394221, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccr7050C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) Chinco Textiles, Vs. The Acit, Cpc, Plot No.104, Road No.7, Gidc Bangalore. Sachin, Surat-394230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefc0028N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.201 & 202/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19 To 2019-20) Shree Laxminarayan Synthetics, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Plot No.275/2, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat. Surat, Gujarat-394221. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfs5319N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.224 & 225/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 To 2019-20) Tirupati Prints, Vs. The Adit, Cpc, S. No.207, Plot No.37 To 40, Bangalore. Bamroli Taluka: Choryasi, Surat-394221, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabft4240J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 36

…t. Thus, even when the amendment is made on retrospective basis, the Honorable Supreme Court has clearly held that no adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act should be made.  It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balram vs.Volkart Brother 82 ITR 50 (SC), that: “The Income- tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that question there can be no two opinions. It was not open to the Income-tax Officer to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act in a proceeding under section 154 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961”.  The explanatory statement in respect of substitution of sec…

Tirupati Prints, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 224/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.147 & 234/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rekha R. Shokla, Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, G-3, Deepanjali Appartment, Sai Bangalore. Krupa Society, No.4-Airport Road, Nani Daman. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bgyps2563M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.150/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) Riddhi Siddhi Prints Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, 75-1 & 75-2, Gidc, Pandesara, Bangalore. Surat-394221, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccr7050C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) Chinco Textiles, Vs. The Acit, Cpc, Plot No.104, Road No.7, Gidc Bangalore. Sachin, Surat-394230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefc0028N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.201 & 202/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19 To 2019-20) Shree Laxminarayan Synthetics, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Plot No.275/2, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat. Surat, Gujarat-394221. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfs5319N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.224 & 225/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 To 2019-20) Tirupati Prints, Vs. The Adit, Cpc, S. No.207, Plot No.37 To 40, Bangalore. Bamroli Taluka: Choryasi, Surat-394221, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabft4240J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 36

…t. Thus, even when the amendment is made on retrospective basis, the Honorable Supreme Court has clearly held that no adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act should be made.  It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balram vs.Volkart Brother 82 ITR 50 (SC), that: “The Income- tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that question there can be no two opinions. It was not open to the Income-tax Officer to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act in a proceeding under section 154 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961”.  The explanatory statement in respect of substitution of sec…

Shree Laxminarayan Synthetics, Surat vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1)(1), Surat

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 202/SRT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.147 & 234/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rekha R. Shokla, Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, G-3, Deepanjali Appartment, Sai Bangalore. Krupa Society, No.4-Airport Road, Nani Daman. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bgyps2563M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.150/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) Riddhi Siddhi Prints Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, 75-1 & 75-2, Gidc, Pandesara, Bangalore. Surat-394221, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccr7050C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) Chinco Textiles, Vs. The Acit, Cpc, Plot No.104, Road No.7, Gidc Bangalore. Sachin, Surat-394230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefc0028N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.201 & 202/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19 To 2019-20) Shree Laxminarayan Synthetics, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Plot No.275/2, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat. Surat, Gujarat-394221. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfs5319N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.224 & 225/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 To 2019-20) Tirupati Prints, Vs. The Adit, Cpc, S. No.207, Plot No.37 To 40, Bangalore. Bamroli Taluka: Choryasi, Surat-394221, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabft4240J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 36

…t. Thus, even when the amendment is made on retrospective basis, the Honorable Supreme Court has clearly held that no adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act should be made.  It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balram vs.Volkart Brother 82 ITR 50 (SC), that: “The Income- tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that question there can be no two opinions. It was not open to the Income-tax Officer to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act in a proceeding under section 154 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961”.  The explanatory statement in respect of substitution of sec…

Chinco Textiles, Surat vs. Asstt. Diretor of Income Tax, Central Processing Centre(CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 160/SRT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.147 & 234/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rekha R. Shokla, Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, G-3, Deepanjali Appartment, Sai Bangalore. Krupa Society, No.4-Airport Road, Nani Daman. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bgyps2563M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.150/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) Riddhi Siddhi Prints Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, 75-1 & 75-2, Gidc, Pandesara, Bangalore. Surat-394221, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccr7050C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) Chinco Textiles, Vs. The Acit, Cpc, Plot No.104, Road No.7, Gidc Bangalore. Sachin, Surat-394230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefc0028N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.201 & 202/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19 To 2019-20) Shree Laxminarayan Synthetics, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Plot No.275/2, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat. Surat, Gujarat-394221. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfs5319N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.224 & 225/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 To 2019-20) Tirupati Prints, Vs. The Adit, Cpc, S. No.207, Plot No.37 To 40, Bangalore. Bamroli Taluka: Choryasi, Surat-394221, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabft4240J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 36

…t. Thus, even when the amendment is made on retrospective basis, the Honorable Supreme Court has clearly held that no adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act should be made.  It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balram vs.Volkart Brother 82 ITR 50 (SC), that: “The Income- tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that question there can be no two opinions. It was not open to the Income-tax Officer to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act in a proceeding under section 154 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961”.  The explanatory statement in respect of substitution of sec…

Riddhi Siddhi Prints Pvt Ltd., Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Banguluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 150/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.147 & 234/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rekha R. Shokla, Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, G-3, Deepanjali Appartment, Sai Bangalore. Krupa Society, No.4-Airport Road, Nani Daman. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bgyps2563M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.150/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) Riddhi Siddhi Prints Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, 75-1 & 75-2, Gidc, Pandesara, Bangalore. Surat-394221, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccr7050C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) Chinco Textiles, Vs. The Acit, Cpc, Plot No.104, Road No.7, Gidc Bangalore. Sachin, Surat-394230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefc0028N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.201 & 202/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19 To 2019-20) Shree Laxminarayan Synthetics, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Plot No.275/2, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat. Surat, Gujarat-394221. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfs5319N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.224 & 225/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 To 2019-20) Tirupati Prints, Vs. The Adit, Cpc, S. No.207, Plot No.37 To 40, Bangalore. Bamroli Taluka: Choryasi, Surat-394221, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabft4240J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 36

…t. Thus, even when the amendment is made on retrospective basis, the Honorable Supreme Court has clearly held that no adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act should be made.  It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balram vs.Volkart Brother 82 ITR 50 (SC), that: “The Income- tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that question there can be no two opinions. It was not open to the Income-tax Officer to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act in a proceeding under section 154 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961”.  The explanatory statement in respect of substitution of sec…

Rekha R Shukla, Nani Daman vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangluru, Bangaaluru

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.147 & 234/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rekha R. Shokla, Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, G-3, Deepanjali Appartment, Sai Bangalore. Krupa Society, No.4-Airport Road, Nani Daman. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bgyps2563M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.150/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) Riddhi Siddhi Prints Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, 75-1 & 75-2, Gidc, Pandesara, Bangalore. Surat-394221, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccr7050C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) Chinco Textiles, Vs. The Acit, Cpc, Plot No.104, Road No.7, Gidc Bangalore. Sachin, Surat-394230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefc0028N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.201 & 202/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19 To 2019-20) Shree Laxminarayan Synthetics, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Plot No.275/2, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat. Surat, Gujarat-394221. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfs5319N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.224 & 225/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 To 2019-20) Tirupati Prints, Vs. The Adit, Cpc, S. No.207, Plot No.37 To 40, Bangalore. Bamroli Taluka: Choryasi, Surat-394221, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabft4240J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 36

…t. Thus, even when the amendment is made on retrospective basis, the Honorable Supreme Court has clearly held that no adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act should be made.  It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balram vs.Volkart Brother 82 ITR 50 (SC), that: “The Income- tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that question there can be no two opinions. It was not open to the Income-tax Officer to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act in a proceeding under section 154 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961”.  The explanatory statement in respect of substitution of sec…

U. P. Singh and Co., Surat vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 236/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.147 & 234/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19 To 2019-20) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rekha R. Shokla, Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, G-3, Deepanjali Appartment, Sai Bangalore. Krupa Society, No.4-Airport Road, Nani Daman. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bgyps2563M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.150/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) Riddhi Siddhi Prints Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Cpc, 75-1 & 75-2, Gidc, Pandesara, Bangalore. Surat-394221, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccr7050C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2019-20) Chinco Textiles, Vs. The Acit, Cpc, Plot No.104, Road No.7, Gidc Bangalore. Sachin, Surat-394230. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefc0028N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.201 & 202/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2018-19 To 2019-20) Shree Laxminarayan Synthetics, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-2(1)(1), Plot No.275/2, Gidc, Pandesara, Surat. Surat, Gujarat-394221. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakfs5319N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.224 & 225/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19 To 2019-20) Tirupati Prints, Vs. The Adit, Cpc, S. No.207, Plot No.37 To 40, Bangalore. Bamroli Taluka: Choryasi, Surat-394221, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabft4240J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 36

…t. Thus, even when the amendment is made on retrospective basis, the Honorable Supreme Court has clearly held that no adjustment under section 143(1) of the Act should be made.  It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balram vs.Volkart Brother 82 ITR 50 (SC), that: “The Income- tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that question there can be no two opinions. It was not open to the Income-tax Officer to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act in a proceeding under section 154 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961”.  The explanatory statement in respect of substitution of sec…

Shiv Shakti Traders, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2877/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40A(3)

…th a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. The expression ‘apparent’ has been interpreted as something which appears to be ex facie and is incapable of arguments or debate in the following judgments:- (i) T.S. Balaram ITO vs. Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Tata Engg. And Locomotive Co. Ltd. 108 ITR 869 (Bom) (iii) CIT vs. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. 228 ITR 463 (SC). It is well settled that mistake may be of fact or of law. The only condition precedent is that the mistake must be apparent from the record of the assessee and that it must be glaring, obvious or self evident mistake as held…

M. Chandra Sekhar Goud, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1640/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri G.Sudhakara Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.Jeevanlal, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…n arguments. This is for the reason that even if it is presumed that the Assessing Officer ought to have proceeded with Section 154 action only there is hardly any dispute in light of hon'ble apex court’s decision in T.S.Balaram, ITO Vs. M/s.Volkart Brothers [82 ITR 50] (SC) provides that such a rectification is meant for apparent mistake(s) than those requiring detailed roving enquiries. It is made clear that the Assessing Officer had indeed issued Section 148 notice resulting in the impugned addition on account of assessee’s failure only to explain the source of the foregoing license fee amount of Rs.16,13,400/…

M. Chandra Sekhar Goud, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1639/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri G.Sudhakara Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.Jeevanlal, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…n arguments. This is for the reason that even if it is presumed that the Assessing Officer ought to have proceeded with Section 154 action only there is hardly any dispute in light of hon'ble apex court’s decision in T.S.Balaram, ITO Vs. M/s.Volkart Brothers [82 ITR 50] (SC) provides that such a rectification is meant for apparent mistake(s) than those requiring detailed roving enquiries. It is made clear that the Assessing Officer had indeed issued Section 148 notice resulting in the impugned addition on account of assessee’s failure only to explain the source of the foregoing license fee amount of Rs.16,13,400/…

Luxora Infrastructure P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1608/MUM/2020[201-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 68

…mistake apparent from record in the order passed u/s 250 of IT. Act 1961 on 31/10/2019 for which order can be passed u/s 154 of IT. Act 1961. Order u/s 154 of IT. Act 1961 passed by CIT(A) on 13/12/2019 bad in law and deserves to be cancelled. Reliance on: i) 82 ITR 50(SC) T.S. Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers & Ors. Z-3) Order passed by CIT(A) on 13/12/2019 is review of earlier order passed on 31/10/2019 which is impressible. No statutory provision available under provisions of IT. Act 1961 to review appellate order passed. Order passed by CIT(A) thus bad in law and deserves to be cancelled. Z-4) CIT(A) in let…

S K G Refractories Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3(2), 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)

…t RECORD. If MISTAKE of law or fact has to be established by construing the words of a section to find its proper meaning, then such an error cannot normally be a rectifiable error. The Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balram, ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) held it was not open to the ITO to go into the true scope of relevant provisions of the Act in proceedings under section 154. 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 of points on which there may, conceivably two opinions. A decision o…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Flipkart Online Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, the MA is dismissed

ITA 369/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 40a

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2012-13 The Dy. Commissioner of Income- Vs. M/s Flipkart Online Services Pvt. tax, Ltd., No.447/C, 1st A Cross, 12th Main, Circle-3(1)(1), 4th Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 025. PAN – AABCF 3146 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 10.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member This appeal by the Revenue is directed agains…