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.

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 5421/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora-ARFor Respondent: Ms. R.M.Madhavi-CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 234D

…se comments on non-inclusion of said items to P/L account, book profit shall not be disturbed since said items does not fall under Explanation 1 to Section 115JB of the Act. 20. For this proposition, we rely on the following judgements: • ITO v Volkart Bros 82 ITR 50 (SC) (pg 1-4 of the LPB I) In this case, the SC has held that a mistake apparent from 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 be conceivably two opinions. • CIT v Hero Cycles (P) Ltd 94 Taxman 271 (SC) (pg 5-11 of LPB I) In this case,…

M/S. the Kolar & Chickballapur vs. The Asst. Commissioner

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

ITA/280/2015HC Karnataka01 Sept 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 260Section 260A

…ng the return ought to have been condoned and no powers under Section 154 of the Act would have been invoked. Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, - 7 - ITO vs. Volkart Brothers reported in (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) which has been quoted in the Co-ordinate bench decision of this Court in the case of Satishchandra and Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1998) 234 ITR 0070, submitted that Section 154 could be invoked only when a mistake apparent on the record is obvious and patent mistake which can be established sans adjudicating on the…

Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth Society, Pune vs. Jt. CIT (OSD) Central Circle-7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals for the A

ITA 53/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Ms. Leena Srivastava
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 154

…ent on record'. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. [1994] 77 Taxman 43/119931 203 ITR 497, while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers 119711 82 ITR 50 has categorically held that the power of rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act can be exercised only when the mistake which is sought to be rectified is an obvious and patent; mistake which is apparent from the record, and not a mistake which requires to be established by arguments and a long drawn process of reasoning on points…

Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth Society, Pune vs. Jt. CIT (OSD) Central Circle-7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals for the A

ITA 48/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Ms. Leena Srivastava
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 154

…ent on record'. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. [1994] 77 Taxman 43/119931 203 ITR 497, while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers 119711 82 ITR 50 has categorically held that the power of rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act can be exercised only when the mistake which is sought to be rectified is an obvious and patent; mistake which is apparent from the record, and not a mistake which requires to be established by arguments and a long drawn process of reasoning on points…

Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth Society, Pune vs. Jt. CIT (OSD), Central Circle-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals for the A

ITA 47/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Ms. Leena Srivastava
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 154

…ent on record'. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. [1994] 77 Taxman 43/119931 203 ITR 497, while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers 119711 82 ITR 50 has categorically held that the power of rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act can be exercised only when the mistake which is sought to be rectified is an obvious and patent; mistake which is apparent from the record, and not a mistake which requires to be established by arguments and a long drawn process of reasoning on points…

3F Oil Palm Agrotech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 27/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. 3F Oil Palm Agrotech Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan Aaacz 4451H …..Appellant. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao. Respondent By : Shri Waseem Ur Rehman. (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 3.6.2021. Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This Assessee’S Appeal For Asst. Year 2012-13 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad’S Order Dt.27.07.2016 Passed In Case No.0272/2015-16 In Proceedings Under Section 154 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman. (D.R.)
Section 10(1)Section 154

…nditure which has been incurred for the purpose of deriving agriculture income could be treated as an instance of an apparent error inviting rectification u/s.154 of the Act. Coupled with this, Revenue’s case does not stand even on legality in light of (1971) 82 ITR 50 T.S. Balram Vs. Volkart Brothers (SC) that a debatable roving issue cannot form subject matter of rectification proceedings. We thus see no substance in Revenue’s stand on factual as well as legal aspects so far as the correctness of the impugned 154 rectification is concerned. The assessee's grounds to this effect stand accepted. 4. This assessee'…

Intelenet Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 12(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5844/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Intelenet Global Services Pvt. Acit – 12(2), 145, Aaykar Ltd; Intelenet Towers, Plot Cst No. Vs. Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Marg, 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 090. Pan No. Aaaci7387P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri S.K Tyagi, A.R Revenue By : Shri V. Sreekar, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021

For Appellant: Shri S.K Tyagi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar, CIT D.R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68

…Intelenet Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 12(2), Mumbai 1 ITA No. 5844/Mum/2018 – A.Y 2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) M/s Intelenet Global Services Pvt. ACIT – 12(2), 145, Aaykar Ltd; Intelenet Towers, Plot CST No. Vs. Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Marg, 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 090. PAN No. AAACI7387P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee by : Shri S.K Tyagi, A.R Revenue by : Shri V. Sreekar, CIT D.R Date of Hearing : 24/02/2021 Date of pronouncement : 24/05/2021…

Mahalaxmi Tex Prints Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 712/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Ms. Shika Mantri and Shri Sidharth Mantri, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Esther, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

…(2010) (Del) Bihar State Warehousing Corpn vs CIT 38 ITR 140 (Pat). It is thus clear that the impugned disallowance issue has been wrongly raised by the Assessing Officer in sec.154 proceedings on a debatable issue as per TS Balram vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC). I therefore accept assessee’s sole substantive ground for this reason alone and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned additions for both these A.Ys 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively. Both these appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 20/04/2021. (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20th April, 2…

Sri Mahalaxmi Tex Prints Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3), Hyderabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 711/HYD/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Ms. Shika Mantri and Shri Sidharth Mantri, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Esther, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

…(2010) (Del) Bihar State Warehousing Corpn vs CIT 38 ITR 140 (Pat). It is thus clear that the impugned disallowance issue has been wrongly raised by the Assessing Officer in sec.154 proceedings on a debatable issue as per TS Balram vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC). I therefore accept assessee’s sole substantive ground for this reason alone and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned additions for both these A.Ys 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively. Both these appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 20/04/2021. (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20th April, 2…

Rakesh Enterprise, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-44(2), Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 541/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Hon’Ble[Through Virtual Court] Assessment Year:2014-15 बनाम Rakesh Enterprise Ito, Ward – 44(2), Kolkata / 11/E/1, Gorapada Sarkar Lane, V/S. Ultadanga, Kolkata – 700 067. Pan No.Aalfr 0329 N अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Jayanta Khanra, Jcit, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194ISection 40A(3)

…ent that the Assessing Officer had not even discussed the list of the recipient which allegedly have exceeded the threshold limit prescribed for the relevant assessment year. Coupled with this, the hon’ble apex court in T.S. Balaram vs Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) has settled the law long back that this rectification Rakesh Enterprise Page 3 provision comes into play only in case of an apparent mistake on record. It emerges that the Assessing Officer had not even examined the same in his original assessment order which could make out of the instant assessment itself suffering from any apparent error. I…

Zenitex, Surat vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 226/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2021AY 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…

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 201/SRT/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2021AY 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…

Anil Goyal, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward 13(5), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 760/HYD/2020[ 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Mar 2021

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Jain, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Esther, D.R
Section 154Section 154(8)

…cation is ITA No. 760/Hyd/2020 AY 2013-14 Shri Anil Goyal, Hyd. nothing else but appropriate computation only so as to determine correct taxable income of an assessee. I also quote hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision T.S. Balram vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) defining the contours of sec.154 jurisdiction that purpose thereof is to undo any patent error only. Faced with this situation, I deem it fit and proper to restore assessee’s impugned grievance to the file of Assessing Officer for his necessary reconciliation as per law. Ordered accordingly. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical p…

Sri Annapyrna Roller Flour Mill, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed

ITA 693/HYD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Mar 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Ms. Shika Mantri and Shri Sidharth Mantri, ARFor Respondent: Smt. N. Esther, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 154

…(2010) (Del) Bihar State Warehousing Corpn vs CIT 38 ITR 140 (Pat). It is thus clear that the impugned disallowance issue has been wrongly raised by the Assessing Officer in sec.154 proceedings on a debatable issue as per TS Balram vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC). I therefore accept assessee’s sole substantive ground for this reason alone. Delay of 1 day in filing of the instant appeal is condoned. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 30/03/2021. (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30th March, 2021 • gmv Copy of Order forwarded to: 1. Shri Annapurna Roller Flour Mi…

Shri Krishna Bothra 302, Vinayak Apartment Prithviraj Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-6 (2), Jaipur, Ward-6(2)

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 967/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 967/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 Krishna Bothra, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 302, Vinayak Apartment, Pritiviraj Ward 6(2) Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Arzpb 5089 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri H.M. Singhvi (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 21/05/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11 Wherein Sole Effective Ground Of Appeal Has Been Taken & The Same Is Reproduced As Under: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Went Wrong In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 9,41,283/- Of Interest U/S 234A(1) Whereas It Should Be Charged As Per Sec. 234A(3) Which Is Bad In Law.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri H.M. Singhvi (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 234A(1)Section 234A(3)

…Since the matter in dispute is debatable as there are two sub sections (1) & (3) for charging of interest u/s 234A, hence rectification order passed is bad in law in view of Hon'able Supreme Court judgement in the case of TS Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart brothers (82 ITR 50,53,54) wherein it has been held that " a decision on debatable point of law is not the mistake apparent from records" and same has been followed by the number of High Courts and ITAT benches of India. Now for the sake of your convenience we are reproducing the sub section (1) and (3). 234A. (1) Where the return of income for any assessment year un…

Shri Peter Caddy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 2389/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1630 To 1633/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively

For Appellant: Smt. R. Prathibha, A.RFor Respondent: Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)

…essment years u/s 154 of the Act and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. 228 ITR 463 and also Mepco Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 319 ITR 409 (SC) and in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50 (SC) and also order of the Tribunal in the case of Chandigarh bench in ITA No.877/CHD/2011 dated 8.11.2011 in the case of Shri Harinder Singh Vs. ITO. 11. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) on earlier occasion in first round taken into all the relevant facts and considered the argument…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore vs. Shri Peter Caddy, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 1633/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1630 To 1633/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively

For Appellant: Smt. R. Prathibha, A.RFor Respondent: Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)

…essment years u/s 154 of the Act and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. 228 ITR 463 and also Mepco Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 319 ITR 409 (SC) and in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50 (SC) and also order of the Tribunal in the case of Chandigarh bench in ITA No.877/CHD/2011 dated 8.11.2011 in the case of Shri Harinder Singh Vs. ITO. 11. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) on earlier occasion in first round taken into all the relevant facts and considered the argument…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore vs. Shri Peter Caddy, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 1632/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1630 To 1633/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively

For Appellant: Smt. R. Prathibha, A.RFor Respondent: Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)

…essment years u/s 154 of the Act and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. 228 ITR 463 and also Mepco Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 319 ITR 409 (SC) and in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50 (SC) and also order of the Tribunal in the case of Chandigarh bench in ITA No.877/CHD/2011 dated 8.11.2011 in the case of Shri Harinder Singh Vs. ITO. 11. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) on earlier occasion in first round taken into all the relevant facts and considered the argument…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore vs. Shri Peter Caddy, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 1631/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1630 To 1633/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively

For Appellant: Smt. R. Prathibha, A.RFor Respondent: Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)

…essment years u/s 154 of the Act and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. 228 ITR 463 and also Mepco Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 319 ITR 409 (SC) and in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50 (SC) and also order of the Tribunal in the case of Chandigarh bench in ITA No.877/CHD/2011 dated 8.11.2011 in the case of Shri Harinder Singh Vs. ITO. 11. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) on earlier occasion in first round taken into all the relevant facts and considered the argument…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore vs. Shri Peter Caddy, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA

ITA 1630/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1630 To 1633/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Respectively

For Appellant: Smt. R. Prathibha, A.RFor Respondent: Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)

…essment years u/s 154 of the Act and he relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. 228 ITR 463 and also Mepco Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 319 ITR 409 (SC) and in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50 (SC) and also order of the Tribunal in the case of Chandigarh bench in ITA No.877/CHD/2011 dated 8.11.2011 in the case of Shri Harinder Singh Vs. ITO. 11. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) on earlier occasion in first round taken into all the relevant facts and considered the argument…