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 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.

Owens -Corning (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6727/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Owens-Corning (India) Vs. The Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known Income Tax-7 As Owens Corning ((India) Mumbai Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Alpha Building, 7Th Floor Maharshi Karve Road Hiranandani Gardens Mumbai – 400 020 Powai, Mumbai – 400706 Pan/Gir No. Aaaco1739M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…be corrected for which jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act could be exercised, as held by the Apex Court in Apollo Tyres Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 255 ITR 273 and T.S. Balaram Income Tax Officer, Company Circle IV, Bombay Vs. M/s Volkart Brothers, 82 ITR 50. 7. We, thus do not find any merits in these appeals. No question of law arises. These appeals are accordingly dismissed.” 5.1. Though the aforesaid decision was rendered in the context of Section 154 of the Act by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the analogy drawn thereon could very well be applied to the impugned proceedings u/s.263 of the Act as t…

Shri Vikram Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Sikar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 484/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 234A

…unts cannot be equated to a 'mistake' in terms of s. 154—In the guise of a mistake the authorities are trying to set aside one view of the assessing authority—Sec. 154 was not available to the authorities—Impugned orders set aside—ITO vs. Volkart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), CIT vs. South India Bank (2001) 166 CTR (SC) 216 : (2001) 249 ITR 304 (SC) and M.D. Narayan vs. Agrl. ITO (1974) 95 ITR 452 (Mys) relied on. 10 Shri Vikram Singh Shekhawat vs DCIT Circle –Sikar 2.3 In the case of Pr. CIT vs. Raigunj Central Co- Operative Bank Ltd. (2017) 98 CCH 0078 KolHC HELD Business Expenditure—Provision for Bad and Doub…

Partha Chatterjee, Hooghly vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Hooghly

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1015/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2009-10 Partha Chatterjee Acit, Circle-1, Hg बनाम C/O S.N.Ghosh & Aaykar Bhawan, G.T. / Associates, Advocates’ V/S. Road, Khadina More,P.O. “Seven Brotherrs’ Lodge” Chinsurah, P.S.Chinsurah, P.O.Buroshibtala, Dist. Hooghly, Pin-712101 P.S.Chinsurah, Dist.Hooghly, Pin-712105 [Pan No.Acepc 8818 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Altaf Husain, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 19-02-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 17-01-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata’S Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed In Case No.360/Cit(A)-6/Kol/2014-15, Involving Proceedings 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File(S) Perused. 2. The Assessee’ Pleadings Raised In The Instant Case Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing / Adding Cost Of Construction Amounting To ₹27,88,995/- In Exercise Of Their Rectification Jurisdiction Vested U/S. 154 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:-

Section 143(3)Section 154

…bvious mistake only. There must be a mistake apparent on the face of the record. It does not cover any mistake which may be discovered by a process investigation, argument of proof It is also settled in the case of BALARAM, I.T.O. -vs- VOLKART BROTHERS (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) that not open to the ITO to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of Act in a proceeding under section 154 of the 1961 Act. A mistake apparent the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. Fur…

Sri Bhaskar Raju, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1828/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 153CSection 154

…tate income. He further submitted that, in any case, the view entertained by the AO is debatable one and hence the same cannot be considered as mistake apparent from record as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram ITO vs. Volkart brothers (82 ITR 50). Accordingly ITA Nos.1828 & 1829 /Bang/2016 Page 5 of 21 he submitted that the impugned rectification proceedings is liable to be quashed. 11. The Ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee has not carried out any real estate activity as claimed. He has incurred expenses for development of land and hence the same was not related to t…

Motury Kanakeswara Rao, Eluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Eluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 513/VIZ/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 154

…and after giving a reasonable opportunity, gave a categorical finding that there is no mistake apparent on record in the order dated 07/07/2015 and by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs. M/s. Volkart Brothers (82 ITR 50) dismissed the petition filed by the assessee. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the order is extracted as under: “Assessee's petition has been examined carefully with respect to the facts of the case as well evidence enclosed with the petition. The evidence is in the form of photo copy of five sheets agreement dated 17.04.2000 e…

Motury Kanakeswara Rao, Eluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Eluru

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 512/VIZ/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 154

…and after giving a reasonable opportunity, gave a categorical finding that there is no mistake apparent on record in the order dated 07/07/2015 and by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs. M/s. Volkart Brothers (82 ITR 50) dismissed the petition filed by the assessee. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the order is extracted as under: “Assessee's petition has been examined carefully with respect to the facts of the case as well evidence enclosed with the petition. The evidence is in the form of photo copy of five sheets agreement dated 17.04.2000 e…

M/S. Abc Engineering Works, Vijayawada vs. The Dy. CIT, Vijayawada

ITA 75/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Abc Engineering Works Vijayawada Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.79/Viz/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 210/Viz/2015 & 75/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar , Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1) Vijayawada (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)

Section 143(1)

…nd not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be 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)' 5.4.1. In view of the above, the issue of allowability or otherwise of depreciation claim requires detailed examination of records / materials. Hence, it is not within the scope of provisions of section 154 of the Act.” 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The AO estimated the income @12.5% and allowe…

The ACIT, Vijayawada vs. M/S. Abc Engineering Works, Vijayawada

ITA 445/VIZ/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Abc Engineering Works Vijayawada Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.79/Viz/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 210/Viz/2015 & 75/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar , Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1) Vijayawada (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)

Section 143(1)

…nd not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be 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)' 5.4.1. In view of the above, the issue of allowability or otherwise of depreciation claim requires detailed examination of records / materials. Hence, it is not within the scope of provisions of section 154 of the Act.” 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The AO estimated the income @12.5% and allowe…

The ACIT, Vijayawada vs. M/S. Abc Engineering Works, Vijayawada

ITA 442/VIZ/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Abc Engineering Works Vijayawada Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.79/Viz/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 210/Viz/2015 & 75/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar , Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1) Vijayawada (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)

Section 143(1)

…nd not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be 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)' 5.4.1. In view of the above, the issue of allowability or otherwise of depreciation claim requires detailed examination of records / materials. Hence, it is not within the scope of provisions of section 154 of the Act.” 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The AO estimated the income @12.5% and allowe…

The ACIT, Vijayawada vs. M/S. Abc Engineering Workers, Vijayawada

ITA 235/VIZ/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Abc Engineering Works Vijayawada Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.79/Viz/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 210/Viz/2015 & 75/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar , Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1) Vijayawada (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)

Section 143(1)

…nd not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be 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)' 5.4.1. In view of the above, the issue of allowability or otherwise of depreciation claim requires detailed examination of records / materials. Hence, it is not within the scope of provisions of section 154 of the Act.” 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The AO estimated the income @12.5% and allowe…

M/S Abc Engineering Works, Vijayawada vs. The DCIT, Vijayawada

ITA 210/VIZ/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Abc Engineering Works Vijayawada Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.79/Viz/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 210/Viz/2015 & 75/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar , Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1) Vijayawada (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)

Section 143(1)

…nd not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be 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)' 5.4.1. In view of the above, the issue of allowability or otherwise of depreciation claim requires detailed examination of records / materials. Hence, it is not within the scope of provisions of section 154 of the Act.” 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The AO estimated the income @12.5% and allowe…

Suresh G. Hundia, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4858/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Shri Suresh G Hundia Vs. Dcit-2(4) (Erstwhile-Acit 14/A, Bharat Nagar, Cc-14, Mumbai) Grant Road Mumbai Mumbai Pan/Gir No.Aaqph7289E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40

…on proceedings u/s.154 of the Act as it would not fall within the ambit of patent, glaring, apparent issue from the records. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TS Balaram, ITO vs. Valkart Bros reported in 82 ITR 50 (SC). Hence, we hold that the impugned disallowance of Rs.20 lakhs could not be done in the proceedings u/s.154 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the additional grounds and regular grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 21/08/2019…

Nsl Renewable Power Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2146/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year:2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Aman BarasiaFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

…here the issue is debatable, such order cannot not be rectified u/s 154. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Hero Cycles (P) LTd (1997) 228 ITR 463 (S.C) ii) ITO vs. Volkat Brothers and Others (SC) (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) iii) CIT vs. Richa & Co (2001) 252 ITR 40 (Del.) iv) Satish Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT (2012) 20 Taxmann.com 172 (Del.) v) CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd (2014) 228 Taxmann.com 184 (Bom HC) vi) DCIT vs. State Bank of Hyderabad (ITA No.1386/Hyd/2015) vii) DCIT vs. Arunachala Logistics (P) Ltd (ITA No.1722/Hyd/2012) 4. Further, the learned Counsel…

M/S Kiran Infra Engineers Ltd. Rachana (Jv), Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4, Jaipur

In the result, these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 570/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agrawal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Jai Singh (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

…d advance is an allowable expenditure of the assessee AOP. In support of his contention, he has M/s Kiran Infra Engineers Ltd. Rachana (JV) vs. ITO/ACIT relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. M/s Valkart Brothers 82 ITR 50 (SC) and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record…

M/S Kiran Infra Engineers Ltd. Rachana (Jv), Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4, Jaipur

In the result, these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 569/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agrawal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Jai Singh (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

…d advance is an allowable expenditure of the assessee AOP. In support of his contention, he has M/s Kiran Infra Engineers Ltd. Rachana (JV) vs. ITO/ACIT relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. M/s Valkart Brothers 82 ITR 50 (SC) and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record…

M/S Kiran Infra Engineers Ltd. Rachana (Jv), Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-2, Jaipur

In the result, these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 568/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agrawal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Jai Singh (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

…d advance is an allowable expenditure of the assessee AOP. In support of his contention, he has M/s Kiran Infra Engineers Ltd. Rachana (JV) vs. ITO/ACIT relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. M/s Valkart Brothers 82 ITR 50 (SC) and submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record…

Beed Taluka Dhud Vasayik Sahakari Sangh Ltd, Beed vs. Income-Tax Officer, Beed

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1025/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gudekar
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(c)

…urt has observed that power to rectify the mistake however, does not cover cases where a revision or review of the order is intended. 9. Further, we find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balram, ITO Vs. M/s. Volkart Brothers reported in (1971) 82 ITR 50 has held that “a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions”. We further find that before Ld.CIT(A), it was assessee’s contention that the deduction u/s 80P has been allowed to the as…

Indian Society for Technical Education, New Delhi vs. ADIT (E), New Delhi

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

ITA 4101/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year. 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154

…ate Authority has grossly erred in upholding the rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act by the ld. A.O., ignoring the ratio of various judicial precedents including the ruling of Hon. Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC), wherein it has been held that issue on which there may be conceivably two opinions cannot be a subject matter of rectification u/s 154 of the Act. 3. Without prejudice to the above, ld. First Appellate Authority has grossly erred in affirming the action of the ld. A.O. making addition amounting to ' 35,19,2001- on account of Institutional Me…

ITO, WD-2(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Globsyn Technologies Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 617/KOL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 35D

…I.T.A Nos.615,616 & 617/Kol/2016 M/s Globsyn Technologies Ltd. Assessment Year: 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A Nos.615,616 & 617/Kol/2016 (Assessment Year: 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05) ITO, Ward-2(3), Kolkata Appellant Vs M/s Globsyn Technologies Ltd. Respondent [PAN:AAACG3401C] For the Appellant : Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA Date of hearing : 07.02.2019 Date of pronouncement : 03.05.2019 ORDER PER Shri S.S.…

ITO, WD-2(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Globsyn Technologies Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 616/KOL/2016[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2002-2003
For Appellant: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 35D

…I.T.A Nos.615,616 & 617/Kol/2016 M/s Globsyn Technologies Ltd. Assessment Year: 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA Before: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A Nos.615,616 & 617/Kol/2016 (Assessment Year: 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05) ITO, Ward-2(3), Kolkata Appellant Vs M/s Globsyn Technologies Ltd. Respondent [PAN:AAACG3401C] For the Appellant : Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA Date of hearing : 07.02.2019 Date of pronouncement : 03.05.2019 ORDER PER Shri S.S.…