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 366,470 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.

JCIT, (OSD), Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1196/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. Nos. 43-45/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos. 1194-1196/Kol/2016) Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. -Vs- Jcit, Osd, Circle-8(1), Kolkata [Pan: Aaach 6621 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 28Section 29Section 32Section 32(1)Section 80I

…is allowable. Hence we hold that the ld CITA had rightly rejected this plea of the assessee that the same cannot be done u/s 154 of the Act by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S.Balaram vs Volkart Bros reported in 82 ITR 50 (SC). Hence we do not find any 14 ITA Nos.1194-1196/Kol/2016& CO Nos. 43-45/Kol/2016 M/s Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd. A.Yrs.2006-07,2007-08&2008-09 infirmity in the order of the ld CITA in this regard. Accordingly, the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed for the Asst Years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. 12. In the result, both the app…

JCIT, (OSD), Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1195/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 28Section 29Section 32Section 32(1)Section 80I

JCIT, (OSD), Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Hi-Tech Systems & Services Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1194/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 28Section 29Section 32Section 32(1)Section 80I

The ITO, Vijayawada vs. Sri M.N.S.Venkateswara Rao, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 19/VIZ/2017[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.19/Viz/2017 (ननधधारणवषा/Assessment Year:2006-07) The Ito, Ward-3(1) Vs. Sri M.N.S.Venkateswara Rao Central Revenue Building D.No.28-17-17, 1St Floor M.G.Road Rama Mandiram Street Vijayawada Arundalpet Vijayawada [Pan :Atapm2301L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri P.S.Murthy, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri D.L.Narasimha Rao, Ar सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.02.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2018 :

For Appellant: Shri P.S.Murthy, DRFor Respondent: Shri D.L.Narasimha Rao, AR

Section 154Section 88E

…rebate. 5.1. Rectification order was subsequently passed for the reason that the profit did not arise from taxable securities transactions and hence appellant is not entitled for rebate u/s88E of the Act. In the case of T.S. Balram, ITO Vs. Vdkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), Hon’ble Apex Court held that a mistake which can be rectified u/s. 154 is one which is patent, which is obvious and whose discovery is not dependent on argument or elaboration (i.e.) debatable point of view. Courts have held in several decisions that where the controversy can be resolved only by way of a complicated process ofinvestigation, r…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhunjhunu vs. Shashi Kant Khetan, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 926/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Raised An Objection Of Maintainability Of The Appeal Of The Revenue Due To The Tax

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)

Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(43)Section 40

…the narrow scope of the powers conferred upon the ITAT u/s 254(2) of the act. The present miscellaneous application filed by the revenue, is an attempt to pray for review under the grab of rectification. Kindly refer ITO v/s ITAT (1987) 168 ITR 0809 (Raj) and 82 ITR 50 (SC). Accordingly the appeal of the revenue kindly be dismissed. The ld AR of the assessee has relied on the following case laws: (i) ITO vs. Shri K. Vivekanandan in ITA No. 1256/Mds/2012 vide order dated 15.03.2017. 8 DCIT v Shri Shashi Kant Khetan (ii) ITO vs Lamba Celebrations Resort in MA No. 45/Chd./2016 dated 19.05.2017 (iii) ITO vs Shri Vis…

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Bhuwalka Pipes Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 882/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raojoint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Osd), Circle 1(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Bhuwalka Pipes Pvt. Ltd. ‘Solus’, 8Th Floor, E & G, No.2 1St Cross Road, Jc Road, Bengaluru-560027. … Respondent Pan: Aabcb 7778 E

For Appellant: Shri P.Dinesha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD), Circle 1(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. M/s.Bhuwalka Pipes Pvt. Ltd. ‘Solus’, 8th Floor, E & G, No.2 1st Cross Road, JC Road, Bengaluru-560027. … Respondent PAN: AABCB 7778 E Appellant by : Shri P.Dinesha, Advocate. Respondent by : Dr.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 28/01/2018 Date of pronouncement : 31/01/2018 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the revenue directed against the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2286/PUN/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 154

…R contended that powers of Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 154 are limited to rectify the mistake apparent from record. The ld. AR pointed that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart Bros. reported as 82 ITR 50 has explained the meaning of „mistake apparent from record‟. The ld. AR submitted that the Hon‟ble Apex Court 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 to points on which there may be conceivable two opinions. A decision on a deb…

Mehta Tubes Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, (OSD)-1, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 234/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: Shri P. D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ *Mh *Mh *Mh* अहमदाबाद । *Mh IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सव"ी izeksn dqekj izeksn dqekj izeksn dqekj, लेखा सद"य एवं महावीर "साद, "या"यक सद"य के सम" । izeksn dqekj BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.234/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) Mehta Tubes Limited, Dy. CIT(OSD)-1, बनाम/ Mehta Lodha & Co. Circle – 4, Vs. 1st Floor, Navjeevan 105, Sakar I, Opp. Gandhigram Post Office, Railway Station, Ashram Road, Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad – 380 009 Ahmedabad. "थाय…

Advanced Enzyme Technologies Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT Cir I, Thane

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1775/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Advanced Enzyme The Asst. Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd. (Formerly Income Tax- 1, Circle01, Known As Advanced Ashar It Park B Wing, 6 Th Biochemicals Ltd.) Floor, Road No. Z-16, Now Known As Advanced Wagle Indl Estate Vs. Enzyme Technologies Ltd. Thane (W) -400 604 Sun Magnetica, A Wing, 5 Th Fl Near Lic Service Road, Thane (W)-400 604 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabca4555E

For Appellant: Vipul Joshi & Dinkle Hariya, ARs’For Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 80Section 80H

…case, the SLP filed by the department is also dismissed by the Apex Court (2003) 264 ITR (St.) 200. Lastly, we would refer to the case law cited by the learned Counsel of Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of T.S. Balaram ITO v/s Volkart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), where the apex Court has clearly held that: "A mistake apparent on the record within the meaning of section 154 of the Act must bean "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. A decision on debatable point of law is…

Saraf Export, Churu vs. ACIT, Jhunjhunu

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 32/JPR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Ojha (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Prithvi Raj Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 80I

…in the light of the above decision. It is settled position of law that where any issue is debatable, it cannot be corrected u/s 154 of the Act. In this regard, the Honble Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balaram (ITO) Vs. Volkart Brothers and others reported in 82 ITR 50 (SC) is relevant wherein an action taken by Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the. Act was found to be illegal. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus:- "In Satyanarayn Laxminarayan Hedge Vs. Malikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, this court while spelling out the scope of the power of `a High. Court under Article 226 of the Constitution rule that an error which…

ACIT, Jaipur vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 41/JPR/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rolly Agarwal (CIT)

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

…llowable in computing the total inc ome. Thus, when on this issue, there is already decision of Hon’ble Supreem Court, the order passd by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 154 is illegal and bad in law in view of the decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50. 11 ITA Nos. 921/JP/2009, 41/JP/2010, 299/JP/2014 & 28/JP/2013. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Jaipur. 2. It is further submitted that against the order of Hon’ble ITAT for AY 2001- 02, 2002-03, & 2005-06 in ITA no. 700,701/JP/2003, 279/JP/2009 & 437/JP/2009 dt. 12.09.2014, assessee filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan. Hon’…

M/S S B B J, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 921/JPR/2009[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rolly Agarwal (CIT)

Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S National Meat and Polutry Processing Board, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 568/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Sainiita No. 568/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. V.K.Sabharwal & Sh. Ravi Kapoor, AdvtFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 13Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

…Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.RM.M.CT.M. Tiruppani Trust v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 636. 4.8 Section 154 provides for rectification of mistake which is apparent from record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers & others (SC) 82 ITR 50 have held that mistake must be obvious and patent and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be two opinions. The Hon'ble Court also held that a decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record. The appellant has also relied on the case of Hotz Hotels Pvt. L…

Shri Rangji Realties Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Shri Rangji Investments Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ITO - 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6119/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm Shri Rangji Realties Pvt. Income Tax Officer- Ltd. (Formerly Known As Shri 1(3)(1) Ranghi Investment Pvt. Ltd.) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 1-B, 1St Floor, Court M.K. Road, Chambers, 35, Sir Vitthaldas Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Thackersey Marg, New Marine Lines, Churchgate. Mumbai- 400 020 Pan No. Aaics5225J Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By .. Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By .. Shri Rakesh Ranjan, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 05-06-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 09-06-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 199(3)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 24

…ted that this is highly debatable issue and it cannot be rectified under section 154 of the Act. For this proposition the learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), wherein it is held as under: - “ 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. As seen earlier, the High Court of Bombay opined that the original assessments were in accordance wit…

Metal Rolling Works Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-47, Mumbai

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

ITA 1857/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 154Section 2(47)(v)Section 269U

…of law or fact or failure to apply the law to a set of facts which remains to be investigated cannot be corrected by way of rectification...............” (Emphasis 9 M/s. Metal Rolling works Ltd. supplied). (ii) T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers & Ors 182 ITR 50, 53 (SC)] “………..It was not open to the Income-tax Officer to go into the true scope of the relevant pro visions of the Act in a proceeding under section 154 of the Income-tax Act 1961. 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 w…

ITO 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Technivision Ventures Ltd ( Formerly M.S, Solix Technologies Ltd), Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 5374/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.5374/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Ito 8(3)(2) बिधम/ Technivision Ventures Ltd.(Formerly M.S. Solix Vs. 201, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road. Technologies Ltd) 1486, C-12- Mumbai Pin:400020 136,522 Lane No.13 Street No.14 Tarnaka, Secunderabad Pin: 500017 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacca5943R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी /Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas Mundhe,(DR)For Respondent: K. Gopal

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 32(2)Section 44ASection 801Section 801A

…27: (1977) 110 ITR 411 (Guj): TC53$.406#1 and CIT Vs. Mohan Lal Kansal. (1978) 114 ITR 583 (P&H: TC 54R.666 followed; CIT Vs. Vindishwari Trading Corpn. 1978 CTR (All) 110 : (1978 113 ITR 791 (All): TC 54R.639#1 and T.S. Balram, ITO: Vs. Volkart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (Supreme Court): TC53R.165 distinguished.” 5. On appraisal of the above said finding we are of the view that the facts and circumstances of the present case is quite similar to the facts of the case relied by the Assessee cited as CIT-10 Vs. Black and Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1237/Mum/2011. The case of the Assessee is fully covered by th…

ITO, Chennai vs. Alchemy Biotech Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 1165/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri N. Devanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: 06.04.2017

Section 250(6)Section 253(2)

…arid processing the same to arrive at a conclusion. 13. As to whether such an exercise would be covered under the existing provisions of s.154 has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers & Others (SC) 82 ITR 50. The Hon'ble Supreme Court 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. In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikaljun Bhavanappa Tirumale [19601 1 SCR 890, the court while…

Kusum Powermet (P) Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 65/CTK/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year :2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT, DR

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 154

…verification facts and figures and are highly debatable in nature and this being an appeal against an order under section 154 of the Act, the same cannot be considered and decided. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S.Balaram vs Volkart Bros,(1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) has held that only mistakes apparent from record can be rectified under section 154 of the Act. The A.R. could not give any reply. Hence, the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25 /04/2017 in the…

Ganeshdas Ramgopal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-40, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 495/KOL/2015[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year : 1999-2000

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 244ASection 264

…Act are very clear and the same can be resorted by the AO only in a case where the mistake is apparent from the records. While doing so, we find support and guidance from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. Vokart Bros reported in 82 ITR 50 wherein it was held as under :- “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. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. The power of the officers…

Sh. Devinder Singh Walia, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5836/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)

…was entitled to a higher depreciation. Thus, I find that the AO in the facts of the present case was incorrect in withdrawing the higher depreciation in the manner it has been done. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of ITO vs Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) fully supports the decision taken. The said order was pronounced on the date of hearing itself in the open Court. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 09th of March 2017. (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *Amit Kumar*…