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 367,181 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.

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ltu, New Delhi

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

ITA 5326/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, 5Th Floor, 9, Cgo Complex, Circle-1, Ltu, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. New Delhi Pan-Aaacm0828R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aditya Chhajed, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Princy Singla, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

…or electric appliances or it was a controversial question, rectification proceedings under Section 154 could not be initiated. This is so held by the Supreme Court in T.S. Balram, Income Tax Officer, Company Circle IV, Bombay Vs. Volkart Brothers And Others, 82 ITR 50 in the following manner:- "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 no two opinions. It was not open…

National Education Foundation, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 734/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 153CSection 154Section 234Section 234ASection 250

…ameters arising out of the record, cannot come within the purview of section 154 of the Act and further the said issue is a debatable issue. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs Volkart Bros & Others reported in 82 ITR 50, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that when the order of assessment passed under section 153C r.w.s. 143[3] r.w.s. 153D of the Act itself is challenged wherein the levy of interest is also challenged in the appeal preferred by the appellant, then the question of…

National Education Foundation, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 733/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 153CSection 154Section 234Section 234ASection 250

…ameters arising out of the record, cannot come within the purview of section 154 of the Act and further the said issue is a debatable issue. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs Volkart Bros & Others reported in 82 ITR 50, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that when the order of assessment passed under section 153C r.w.s. 143[3] r.w.s. 153D of the Act itself is challenged wherein the levy of interest is also challenged in the appeal preferred by the appellant, then the question of…

National Education Foundation, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 732/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 153CSection 154Section 234Section 234ASection 250

…ameters arising out of the record, cannot come within the purview of section 154 of the Act and further the said issue is a debatable issue. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs Volkart Bros & Others reported in 82 ITR 50, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that when the order of assessment passed under section 153C r.w.s. 143[3] r.w.s. 153D of the Act itself is challenged wherein the levy of interest is also challenged in the appeal preferred by the appellant, then the question of…

National Education Foundation, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 731/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 153CSection 154Section 234Section 234ASection 250

…ameters arising out of the record, cannot come within the purview of section 154 of the Act and further the said issue is a debatable issue. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs Volkart Bros & Others reported in 82 ITR 50, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that when the order of assessment passed under section 153C r.w.s. 143[3] r.w.s. 153D of the Act itself is challenged wherein the levy of interest is also challenged in the appeal preferred by the appellant, then the question of…

National Education Foundation, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 730/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 153CSection 154Section 234Section 234ASection 250

…ameters arising out of the record, cannot come within the purview of section 154 of the Act and further the said issue is a debatable issue. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs Volkart Bros & Others reported in 82 ITR 50, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that when the order of assessment passed under section 153C r.w.s. 143[3] r.w.s. 153D of the Act itself is challenged wherein the levy of interest is also challenged in the appeal preferred by the appellant, then the question of…

National Education Foundation, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 729/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 153CSection 154Section 234Section 234ASection 250

…ameters arising out of the record, cannot come within the purview of section 154 of the Act and further the said issue is a debatable issue. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs Volkart Bros & Others reported in 82 ITR 50, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that when the order of assessment passed under section 153C r.w.s. 143[3] r.w.s. 153D of the Act itself is challenged wherein the levy of interest is also challenged in the appeal preferred by the appellant, then the question of…

National Education Foundation, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 728/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 153CSection 154Section 234Section 234ASection 250

…ameters arising out of the record, cannot come within the purview of section 154 of the Act and further the said issue is a debatable issue. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs Volkart Bros & Others reported in 82 ITR 50, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that when the order of assessment passed under section 153C r.w.s. 143[3] r.w.s. 153D of the Act itself is challenged wherein the levy of interest is also challenged in the appeal preferred by the appellant, then the question of…

M/S. Sri Kumarswamy Minerals Exports Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 686/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Sri Kumaraswamy The Deputy Minerals Exports Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of No. 58, Cunningham Road Income Tax, Cross, Circle – 6[1][2], Bangalore – 560 052. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaqcs4798A Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sankarganesh K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-02-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Ex-Parte Order Dated 12.10.2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals]-12, Bengaluru, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 12/10/2021, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Taxed On A Total Income Of Rs. 103,97,62,214/- As Determined By The Learned Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Learned

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar
Section 143Section 154Section 234Section 250

…meters arising out of the record, cannot come within the purview of section 154 of the Act and further the said issue is a debatable issue. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs Volkart Bros Et Others reported in 82 ITR 50, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that when the order of assessment passed under section 143[3] of the Act itself is challenged and an appeal has been preferred, then the question of invoking the provisions of section 154 of the Act is impermissible and consequen…

Shrimati Poonam Mittal, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3), Jalandhar

ITA 449/ASR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mehra, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40A(3)

…n rendering the assessment order passed by him u/s.143(3) of the Act amenable for rectification under section 154 of the Act. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO, Company Circle-IV, Bombay vs. Volkart Brothers and Ors. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), it is only a mistake apparent from the record, i.e., one which is obvious and patent and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions that can be rectified within the meaning of Section 154 of the Act. At this stage, we may herein observe, that though Sect…

Bromide Chemical Industries, Jabalpur vs. Dy . Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 39/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Bromide Chemical Industries Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Jabalpur Cpc, Income Tax Department, (M.P.) Bengaluru - 560500 [Pan: Aacfb 3911F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sukesh Kumar, Fca Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20/12/2021

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…tions – even as the same agrees with that expressed by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra)(see para 3.1 of this order), is of little consequence in view of the limited scope of an amendment u/s. 154, law on which is well-settled (ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC)), with the Explanatory Notes to the Provisions of the Finance Bill, 2021 itself admitting of a conflict of judicial opinion, explaining that to be the reason for effecting the amendments per the said Explanations. The only circumstance justifying the impugned additions is a decision/s by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (also see para 4.2…

Unicon Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 410/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Unicorn Industries Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Hyderabad – 500003. Circle 17(2), Pan : Aaacu3501D. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By: Sri T. Sunil Goutam Date Of Hearing: 06/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/12/2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y 2014-15 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi’S Order Dated 21.09.2021 In Case No.Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1035761358(1) Involving Proceedings Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

…ssment year. We hold in these factual circumstances that such an issue is not in the nature of an apparent mistake attracting section 154 rectification of mistake as held in hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in T.S. Balram Vs M/s. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC). Their lordships hold that a rectification is not meant to correct the alleged mistakes requiring long drawn process of enquiry. We accordingly delete the impugned additional depreciation disallowance going by the very reasoning only. 2 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 7th December, 2…

Mahaveer Kumar Jain, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 418/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19 Anand Kumar Jain, Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of C/O. Katrapati & Income Tax, Associates, Central Circle – 3(3), 1-1-298/2/B3, 1St Floor, Hyderabad. Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 020 Pan : Aecpj1189F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year – 2018-19 Pramod Kumar Jain, Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of C/O. Katrapati & Income Tax, Associates, Central Circle – 3(3), 1-1-298/2/B3, 1St Floor, Hyderabad. Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 020 Pan : Aetpj7173G (Appellant) (Respondent) Asseesment Year – 2018-19 Mahaveer Kumar Jain, Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of C/O. Katrapati & Income Tax, Associates, Central Circle – 3(3), 1-1-298/2/B3, 1St Floor, Hyderabad. Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 020 Pan : Aecpj1184J Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Sri Rohit Mujumdar. Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2021 Per S. S. Godara, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Sri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 132BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 158BSection 234Section 234B

…er the learned lower authorities would invoke section 154 rectification in such an instance, in our considered opinion, goes in assessee’s favour and against the department. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in T.S. Balram Vs M/s. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) has settled the law that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent one than something which could be established by a long drawn process of reasoning involving more than one opinions. The factual position is no different before us wherein the assessee’s case all along has sought to treat the cash seized as self-assessment and…

Pramod Kumar Jain, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 417/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19 Anand Kumar Jain, Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of C/O. Katrapati & Income Tax, Associates, Central Circle – 3(3), 1-1-298/2/B3, 1St Floor, Hyderabad. Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 020 Pan : Aecpj1189F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year – 2018-19 Pramod Kumar Jain, Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of C/O. Katrapati & Income Tax, Associates, Central Circle – 3(3), 1-1-298/2/B3, 1St Floor, Hyderabad. Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 020 Pan : Aetpj7173G (Appellant) (Respondent) Asseesment Year – 2018-19 Mahaveer Kumar Jain, Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of C/O. Katrapati & Income Tax, Associates, Central Circle – 3(3), 1-1-298/2/B3, 1St Floor, Hyderabad. Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 020 Pan : Aecpj1184J Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Sri Rohit Mujumdar. Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2021 Per S. S. Godara, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Sri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 132BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 158BSection 234Section 234B

…er the learned lower authorities would invoke section 154 rectification in such an instance, in our considered opinion, goes in assessee’s favour and against the department. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in T.S. Balram Vs M/s. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) has settled the law that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent one than something which could be established by a long drawn process of reasoning involving more than one opinions. The factual position is no different before us wherein the assessee’s case all along has sought to treat the cash seized as self-assessment and…

Anand Kumar Jain, Hyderabad vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 416/HYD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19 Anand Kumar Jain, Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of C/O. Katrapati & Income Tax, Associates, Central Circle – 3(3), 1-1-298/2/B3, 1St Floor, Hyderabad. Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 020 Pan : Aecpj1189F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year – 2018-19 Pramod Kumar Jain, Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of C/O. Katrapati & Income Tax, Associates, Central Circle – 3(3), 1-1-298/2/B3, 1St Floor, Hyderabad. Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 020 Pan : Aetpj7173G (Appellant) (Respondent) Asseesment Year – 2018-19 Mahaveer Kumar Jain, Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of C/O. Katrapati & Income Tax, Associates, Central Circle – 3(3), 1-1-298/2/B3, 1St Floor, Hyderabad. Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 020 Pan : Aecpj1184J Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Sri Rohit Mujumdar. Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/11/2021 Per S. S. Godara, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Sri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 132BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 158BSection 234Section 234B

…er the learned lower authorities would invoke section 154 rectification in such an instance, in our considered opinion, goes in assessee’s favour and against the department. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in T.S. Balram Vs M/s. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) has settled the law that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent one than something which could be established by a long drawn process of reasoning involving more than one opinions. The factual position is no different before us wherein the assessee’s case all along has sought to treat the cash seized as self-assessment and…

Nikhil Mohine, Parasia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 38/JAB/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Nov 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ITA Nos. 37& 38/Jab/2021 (AY 2018-19& 2019-20) Nikhil Mohinev. Dy. CIT/Asst. DIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR (SMC) (through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 37&38/Jab/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19& 2019-20 Nikhil Mohine, Deputy Commissioner of vs. Income Tax, Ward No. 11, CPC, Income Tax Department, 128,Gandhi Ward, Bengaluru, Karnataka -560500 Parasia, Chhindwara, Chhindwara(M.P.)-480441 [PAN: AUMPM9207F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. JancyBiju , Advocate Respondent by Sh.S.K.Halder, DR Date of hearing 26/10/2021 Da…

Nikhil Mohine, Chhindwara vs. DCIT, CPC, Benguluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 37/JAB/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Nov 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…ITA Nos. 37 & 38/Jab/2021 (AY 2018-19 & 2019-20) Nikhil Mohine v. Dy. CIT/Asst. DIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR (SMC) (through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 37 & 38/Jab/2021 Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Nikhil Mohine, Deputy Commissioner of vs. Income Tax, Ward No. 11, CPC, Income Tax Department, 128,Gandhi Ward, Bengaluru, Karnataka -560500 Parasia, Chhindwara, Chhindwara (M.P.)-480441 [PAN: AUMPM9207F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Smt. Jancy Biju , Advocate Respondent by Sh. S.K.Halder, Sr. DR Date of hearing…

M/S Deepak Electronics, Solan vs. ITO, Ward, Solan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 496/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Nov 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

…ich covers within its ambits only such errors which are apparent from the records, hence there cannot be two opinions on such issue. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers And Ors. reported at 82 ITR 50 (SC). It was also stated that the assessee is eligible for 100% deduction under section 80IC of the Act and that the A.O. who made the reduction of Rs. 7,17,782/- from the eligible profit was also required simultaneously to allow the deduction under section 80IC on this amount particularly when after this adjustment the assessable income remained…

Cargo Service Centre India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 3612/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2021AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 35A

…gned order was passed on 29th March 2019. The quantification of loss, which is well beyond the limited scope of „mistake apparent on record‟ under section 154 and in the light of Hon‟ble Supreme Court‟;s judgment in the case of ITO Vs Volkart Brothers [(1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)], could not have been disturbed in the proceedings under section 154, and what cannot be done under section 154, cannot be done under section 263 r.w.s. 154 either. Whichever way one looks at it, the impugned revision order is vitiated in law. As regards learned Departmental Representative‟s plea that the quantification of loss in question was…

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

…ch can he established by a long- drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record T.S. Balaram, Income-tax Officer Vs. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). It would necessarily mean an obvious error which is incapable of argument or debate. [District Excise Officer v. ITO [1998] 66 ITD 168 (Delhi Trib.)] A careful reading of the above interpretations makes it amply clear that any mistake in order to be rectified has to be something which is apparent, in other words, glaring, conspicuous and self…