How many judgments cite T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.?

382 judgments on BharatTax cite T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros. (82 ITR 50), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 154, Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 153A, Section 69, Section 263.

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 367,154 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 154 Section 143(3)Section 250 Section 153A Section 69 Section 263 Section 245D(4)Section 245D(6B)

Issues it is cited on

mistake apparent from record rectification u/s 154 mistake apparent on record section 154 change of opinion regular assessment section 15 section 24 section 234 section 23 income-tax officer previous year

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

Saraca Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1166/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 Saraca Laboratories Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 3(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccs 8240 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Revenue By: Shri Rohit Muzumdar Date Of Hearing: 16/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Muzumdar

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Saraca Laboratories Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 3(1), Hyderabad. PAN – AACCS 8240 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Revenue by: Shri Rohit Muzumdar Date of hearing: 16/02/2021 Date of pronouncement: 23/02/2021 O R D E R PER BENCH: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against CIT(A) – 3, Hyderabad’s order dated 17/05/2019…

M/S. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(5) Presently Circle 4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 282/BANG/2017[2002 - 2003]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jan 2021

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM ITA No.282/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2002-2003 M/s.Karnataka Power Corporation The Asst.Commissioner of Limited, No.82, Shakthi Bhavan Income-tax, Circle 4(1)(1) v. Race Course Road Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 001. PAN : AAACK8032D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent by : Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR Date of Date of Hearing : 07.01.2021 Pronouncement : 11.01.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, JM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is d…

M/S. Unity Industries, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6(2)(3), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1862/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.R.E.BalasubramanyamFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale

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

…ess of the transaction. Therefore, taking proceedings u/s 154 of the I.T.Act only goes to show that it is only a mere change of opinion, which is outside the mandate of the said section. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Volkart Brothers [(1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)] held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which could be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there might conceivably be two opinions. Since the assessee in the given facts, had proved that there is commercial / business expediency in making cash purchases…

Arun Construction, Bhagalpur vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Bhagalpur

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 330/PAT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Arun Construction Acit, Circle-1, Bhagalpur / Naya Chak, Ishak Chak, V/S. Mahabri Prasad Lane, Bhagalpur-812001, Bihar Pan No.Aaffa9557K अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri K. N Prasad, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Ajay Kumar, Addl.Cit, Sr. Dr

Section 153Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA ‘VIRTUAL COURT’AT KOLKATA Before Shri S.S. Godara, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Arun Construction ACIT, Circle-1, Bhagalpur / Naya Chak, Ishak Chak, V/s. Mahabri Prasad Lane, Bhagalpur-812001, Bihar PAN No.AAFFA9557K अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri K. N Prasad, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Ajay Kumar, Addl.CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 16-09-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement 16-09-2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench(Oral): This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012…

DCIT - 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rreef India Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3086/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(1)(a)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 3086/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2009-10) DCIT 1(3)(1) M/s. Rreef India Advisors Vs. Room No. 540 Pvt. Ltd. 5th Floor Block B, 222 Aayakar Bhavan Kodak House M.K. Road Dr.D.N. Road, Fort Mumbai Mumbai-400 001. PAN : AAACU7837J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Shri V. Vinod Kumar Date of Hearing 07.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement 14.09.2020 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned CIT(A) dated 22.12.2017 and pertains t…

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Khoday India Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2085/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri B.R. Baskaranincome Tax Officer, Ward 4(1)(2), Bangalore. ….Appellant Vs. M/S. Khoday India Limited, 7Th Mile, Brewery House, Bangalore-560 062 ……Respondent. Pan Aaack 6734C Assessee By: Shri S.Sundar Rajan, Addl. Cit (D.R) Revenue By: Shri V. Sridhar, C.A.

For Appellant: Shri S.Sundar Rajan, Addl. CIT (D.R)For Respondent: Shri V. Sridhar, C.A

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

…s submitted the issue is debatable and can be established only by a long drawn process of reasoning on which there may be conceivably two opinions. In this context, the assessee relied on the judgement of Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balram Vs. Volkart Bros 82 ITR 50 (SC). As regard disallowance under Section 14A whether it can be added to the Book Profits under Section 115JB of the Act, it was submitted that it has been decided by the Special Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. 58 ITR 313 (Delhi) in favour of assessee. 5. The ld. CIT (Appeals) decided the issue in favo…

Jmd Auto India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 923/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Dharmesh Shah, &For Respondent: Mr. Choudhary Arunkumar Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 50

…ue is pending before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that vide order dated 06.12.2018, the Ld. CIT(A) by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50 (SC), dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submits that during the impugned assessment year the appellant had sold a fixed asset on which a JMD Auto India Pvt. Ltd 4 profit of Rs.11,97,269/- had arisen on account of sale of the show-room. It is explained that as per the provisions of the Act, t…

Futura Polysters Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1460/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1459-1460/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Futura Polyster Limited Ito 6(3)(1) B-22, T.V. Indl Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 030 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aaaci3404K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R‘S Respondent By: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R Date Of Hearing: 15.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2020

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 41(1)(a)Section 43BSection 68

…see before him were beyond the scope of adjustments permissible under Sec.154 of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(A) drawing support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer Vs. Volkart Brothers & Ors. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), rejected the claim of the assessee for the reason that the mistakes ITA Nos. 1459-1460/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 Futura Polyster Ltd. Vs ITO-6(3)(1) 40 pointed out in the rectification application did not fall within the purview of rectification under Sec. 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 31. The assessee b…

Futura Polysters Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1459/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Debashis Chanda, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 41(1)(a)Section 43BSection 68

Garodia Syntex Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax 4(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7228/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh,Am M/S. Garodia Syntex Pvt. Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer 4(2)(2) 8/12, Bhaskar Lane Aayakar Bhavan 1St Floor, Room No.15-16 M.K.Road, Bhuleshwar, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 002 Pan/Gir No.Aabcg3860A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154

…the Act dated 06/05/2013. This we find is a debatable issue and in any case cannot be done vide proceedings u/s.154 of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram vs. Volkart Brothers in 82 ITR 50 as the said issue of write off on account of staff loans and advances would not be a patent and glaring mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of Section 154 of the Act. We find that the case laws relied upon by the ld. DR which were relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order are factually distinguishable in as much as in tho…

M/S. Mphasis Software & Services (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1948/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri B.R.Baskaranita No.1948(Bang)/2018 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Mphasis Software & Services (India) Pvt.Ltd., Bagmane World Technology Centre, 1St Floor, Wing A, Wtc 3, Kr Puram, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru-560 048 Pan No.Aaccm5986K Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax Officer, Circle-4,(1)(2), Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.R.Girish, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Girish, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

…ITA No.1948(B)2018 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES : “A”, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1948(Bang)/2018 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Mphasis Software & Services (India) Pvt.Ltd., Bagmane World Technology Centre, 1st Floor, wing a, WTC 3, KR Puram, Marathahalli Outer Ring Road, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru-560 048 PAN No.AACCM5986K Appellant Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Circle-4,(1)(2), Bangalore Respondent Appellant by : Shri K.R.Girish, CA Revenue by : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT Date of hearing…

Sh. Sandeep Bhargava (HUF), Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 43/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.43/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Geetinder Mann, ACIT

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250(6)Section 54Section 54B

…he case of ‘Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ramesh Electric And Trading Co.’ (1993) 203 ITR 497 (Bom.), wherein, the Hon'ble High Court while relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers’ [1971] 82 ITR 50 and further relying upon the decisions of the various High Courts 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 est…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Alwar vs. Shri Sudesh Kumar Gupta, Alwar

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 976/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 68Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ‘B’ JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 976/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2014-15 cuke The ACIT, Shri Sudesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Circle-02, Prop. M/s Salasar Textiles, Alwar 1, Babu Karan Singh Complex, Court Road, Behror, Distt. Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACUPG6791Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT…

The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Colwell & Salmon Communication (India) Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 956/AHD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year: 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Adv with

Section 154Section 92C

…ot something which can be established by a long-drawn process of 3 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, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50(SC). 'A mistake becomes a mistake apparent from the record when it is a glaring, obvious or self-evident mistake. A mistake which has to be discovered by long-drawn process of reasoning or examination of arguments on points where there may conceivably two opinions cannot be said to be mistake or error which is apparent from the record - Arvind N.…

M/S Cessna Garden Developers Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 202/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri. B. Sudheendra, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

…that the issue which is debatable and can be justified either way by long drawn process of reasoning is not susceptible to rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram v. Volkart Bros., 82 ITR 50 (SC). It was thereafter submitted that notwithstanding error committed by the assessee in declaring the lease rental income from SEZ under the head ‘income from house property’, the income so derived essentially and inherently remains the business income ITA No. 202 & 203/Bang/2019 Page 4 of 10 and is chargeable under the head ‘income from busine…

Shri Rajendra Agrawal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1052/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1052/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cuke Shri Rajendra Agarwal The Ito Vs. 8/138, Vidhyadhar Nagar Ward- 7(1) Jaipur 302 039 Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aatpa 7184 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Paul, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 03 /03/2020 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Paul, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH ‘B’, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k Before : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, JM & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1052/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 cuke Shri Rajendra Agarwal The ITO Vs. 8/138, Vidhyadhar Nagar Ward- 7(1) Jaipur 302 039 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@ PAN/GIR No.: AATPA 7184 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Run…

Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Smarak Samiti, Mumbai vs. ITO (E), Circle 1 (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 435/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri. Devdatta MainkarFor Respondent: Shri. Kumar Padmapani Bora

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154

…that can be rectified u/s.154. Hence, the order of the Assessing Officer u/s.154 is not sustainable. This view is duly supported by the following decisions referred by the ld. Counsel of the assessee. Sr Particulars No. I. T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. 82 ITR 50 (Supreme Court- 1971) 2. Commissioner v. Trustees of Shri Teckchand Chandiram Trust. 184 ITR 537 ( Bombay- 1990) 4 Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Smarak Samiti 3. Commissioner of Income tax-Ill, Pune Vs. Sakal Relief Fund. 81 taxmann.com 396 (Bombay - 2017) 4. Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Nagpur Hotel Association. 1 14 taxman 255 (Supreme Court - 20…

M/S.the Chombal Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. The ITO, WD-2(2), Kozhikkode

ITA 89/COCH/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha

Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

…record, there is no justification to reopen the case u/s 154 r.w.s. 250. 5) The rectification u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 by the Hon’ble CIT(Appeals) is not in consonance with the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of T S Balaram ITO v. Volkat Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) and Mepco Industries Ltd. v. CIT and another (2009) 319 ITR 208 SC. 6) The decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Kilkothagiri Tea & Coffee Estate Co. Ltd., relied upon by the Hon’ble CIT (Appeals) is not applicable to your appellant’s case. 4 M/s.The Chombal SCB Ltd. 7) For the above and other grounds that may be submitt…

DCIT Ltu 2, Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2007-08

ITA 4219/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Dcit (Ltu)-2, M/S Tata Motors Ltd., World Trade Centre, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Centre No. 1, 29Th Floor, Street, Hutatma Chowk, Cuffe Parade, Vs. Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai - 400005 Pan : Aaact2727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (Cit) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora & Nikhil Tiwari (Ars)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora & Nikhil Tiwari (ARs)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (CIT)

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2007-08 The DCIT (LTU)-2, M/s Tata Motors Ltd., World Trade Centre, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Centre No. 1, 29th Floor, Street, Hutatma Chowk, Cuffe Parade, Vs. Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai - 400005 PAN : AAACT2727Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (CIT) Assessee by : Shri Rajan Vora & Nikhil Tiwari (ARs) Date of Hearing: 21/11/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 18/02/2020 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM The revenue has filed the present appeal against t…

The Sholayar Service Co-Op Bank Ltd, Palakkad vs. The ITO, Palakkad

ITA 58/COCH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sivadas Chettoor, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

…gned order of assessment. 6. The learned AR filed detailed written submission challenging the order of the CIT(A) passed u/s. 154 of the I.T. Act. The Ld. AR relied on the following case laws: i) T.S. Balaram, Income-tax Officer vs. Volkart Brothers (1974) 82 ITR 50 (SC) ii) Pr.CIT vs. Ekta Co-op Credit Society Ltd. (2018) 91 taxmann.com 42 (Gujarat) iii) CIT vs. Jafari Momin Vikas Co-op Credit Society Ltd. (2014) 49 taxmann.com 571 (Gujarat) iv) CIT vs. Surat Vankar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2014) 43 taxmann.com 431 (Gujarat) v) ACIT vs. People’s Co-op Credit Society Ltd. (2019) 107 taxmann.com 53 (Ahmedab…