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 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.

Qlar India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1134/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Qlar India Private Limited The Dcit, Circle 11(1) No.3, Old No.18& 23, 3 Rd Main Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, Road, 1St Phase, Peenya Chowringhee Square, Vs. Industrial Area, Bengaluru, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Karnataka-560058 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs4728C Assessee By : Shri K.M Gupta, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri K.M Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251(1)(a)Section 37(1)

…patent mistake and not something which can be established by long process of reasoning and points on which two opinions are possible. The case of the assessee find support from the various decisions which read as under: - (i) ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), (ii) MC Mowjee& CO. Private Limited vs. ITO in ITA no. 2118/KOL/2024 vide order dated 17.03.2025 (iii) Lanshree products & Services Limited Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 08/KOL/2022 vide order dated 12.07.2022 (iv) PCIT Vs. Lanshree Products & Services Ltd. (2023) 150 taxmann.com 389 (Calcutta) dated 31.03.2023 07. We note that in all the above decisio…

Kothari Agritech Pvt. Ltd, Solapur vs. The DCIT, Circle-1, Solapur

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2455/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

…as well, that AO rejected both claims and erroneously computed it based on assessed income u/s 143(1) of IT Act 1961. Thus, on this premise, it is stated based on judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court - T.S. Balaram, Income Tax officer v. Volkart Brothers [1971]82 ITR 50 (SC): where hon'ble Supreme court noted that that mistake on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established on long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivable 2 opinions. Based on above reasoning, order u/s 154 of IT Act 1961 dated 11th January 2023 is not correct. Thus, as mentio…

Kothari Agritech Private Limited, Solapur vs. DCIT Circle-1, Solapur

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2392/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

…as well, that AO rejected both claims and erroneously computed it based on assessed income u/s 143(1) of IT Act 1961. Thus, on this premise, it is stated based on judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court - T.S. Balaram, Income Tax officer v. Volkart Brothers [1971]82 ITR 50 (SC): where hon'ble Supreme court noted that that mistake on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established on long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivable 2 opinions. Based on above reasoning, order u/s 154 of IT Act 1961 dated 11th January 2023 is not correct. Thus, as mentio…

Sh. Nanu Ram Choyal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-Behror, Alwar

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

ITA 1015/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 154

…clearly seen that the facts of the case does not fall under the purview of section 154 of the Act. In regards to the applicability of the provisions of section 154 of the Act, Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers reported in [1971] 82 ITR 50 held that the power of rectification of mistakes u/s 154 of the Act is a very limited power which is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. Besides, it must be a mistake which is patent on the face of the record and does not call for detailed investigation of the facts or require an elaborate argument to establish it. It…

Osaka Alloys & Steel Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, Jld, Jalandhar

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

ITA 60/ASR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. &
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 154Section 154oSection 2(24)Section 250Section 250oSection 80I

…sonable scope for more than one interpretation the remedy of 7 I.T.A. No. 60/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 rectification is not available . He further referred to the Hon’ble Apex Court Judgment in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 where the Hon’ble court has held that a mistake apparent form 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 can conceivably be two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not mistake apparent from the record. 15. In support of his…

Cci Chambers Co-Op Hsg Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 3543/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Prakash Jotwani

…ecisions of interpretation. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the binding decisions of interpretation. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the binding decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [(1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)] and CIT v. Keshri Metal Pvt. Ltd. CIT v. Keshri Metal Pvt. Ltd. [(1999) 237 ITR 165 [(1999) 237 ITR 165 (SC)], and held that no mistake apparent from the record was (SC)], and held that no mistake apparent from the (SC)], and held that no mistake apparent from the discernible in the intimation under Section 143(1) discernible in the intimatio…

Cci Chambers Co-Op Hsg Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal

ITA 3542/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Prakash Jotwani

…ecisions of interpretation. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the binding decisions of interpretation. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the binding decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [(1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)] and CIT v. Keshri Metal Pvt. Ltd. CIT v. Keshri Metal Pvt. Ltd. [(1999) 237 ITR 165 [(1999) 237 ITR 165 (SC)], and held that no mistake apparent from the record was (SC)], and held that no mistake apparent from the (SC)], and held that no mistake apparent from the discernible in the intimation under Section 143(1) discernible in the intimatio…

Sheetal Jagga vs. ITO-Ward -47(2), New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 5073/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 5073/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Sheetal Jagga, Vs Income Tax Officer, H-35, 1St Floor, Jangpura Extension, Ward-47(2), New Delhi-110014 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappj0956P Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. & Sumangla Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069230846(1) Dated 28.09.2024, In Proceedings U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

…’s case accordingly is that once the assessee has not filed or instituted any appeal against the above assessment, the instant appeal involving section 154 rectification could deal with a very limited scope going by T. S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. (1971) 82 ITR 40 (SC) 4. Learned counsel on the other hand submits that the assessee has faced a lot of hardships in preferring appeal against the above section 143(3) assessment dated 07.12.2019; and, therefore, she chose to file appeal against the Assessing Officer’s rectification only dated 16.12.2019 (supra). 5. Be that as it may, we are of the considered vie…

Bgm Telecommunications Private Limited, Delhi vs. PCIT, Delhi-1, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 4061/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Bgm Telecommunications Pvt. Vs. Pcit, Ltd., Delhi-1, D-288/289, Wadhwa Complex New Delhi Gali No. 10, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Pan: Aagcb2484E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Fca Department By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit(Dr)

Section 154Section 263Section 68

…5. We are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that such a course of substantive adjudication in an instance of section 154 rectification by the Assessing Officer could not be held sustainable in law as per T. S. Balaram, ITO v Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 40 (SC). This is what has formed the precise reason for the learned PCIT to invoke section 263 revision jurisdiction in light of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC). We thus see no reason to interfere with the learned PCIT’s impugned action holding the Assessing Officer’s above section 154 rectification dated 17th March, 2023 as an err…

Ojas Shashikant Kulkarni, Margao vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 50/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji20 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 050/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Ojas Shashikant Kulkarni A-3/A-4, C.D. Neighbourhood, Swami Chinmayanand Marg, Gogoi, Salcete, Margao, Goa Pan : Dkzpk5732F . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Director Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr D.E. Robinson [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Smt Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 19/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; Assessee’S Captioned Appeal Impugns Din & Order 1072026383(1) Dt. 09/01/2025 Passed By Addl//Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-2, Jaipur [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Intimation Dt. 26/11/2021 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By Asstt. Direction Of Income Tax, Cpc, Bengaluru [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr D.E. Robinson [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Smt Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 90

…cord or submission to dislodge the appellant’s claim that denial of relief by the Ld. AO on the basis of belated date of filing of return vis-à-vis belated filing of requisite in view of Hon’ble Apex Court decision in ‘T.S. Balaram Vs Volkart Brothers’ [1971, 82 ITR 50 (SC)] forms and is an apparent & rectifiable mistake u/s 154 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 7 of 10 Ojas Shashikant Kulkarni Vs ADIT ITA Nos.050/PAN/2025 AY: 2020-21 9. In view of the aforestated discussion, we are of the view that, the delay occurred in filing first appeal u/s 246A of the Act was accidental as was jointly attributable to COVID-19…

Sanjay Kumar Baid, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 57/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.57/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sanjay Kumar Baid Arihant Bearing & Mill Stores, Opp. Deshbandhu School, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Acipj2887L ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Adarsh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 96

…t be considered mistake apparent from record as it involves the reasoning of taxability of compensation received by the assessee. The Hon'ble 5 Sanjay Kumar Baid Vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Raipur Supreme Court in the case of T. S. Balaram, ITO v Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 40 (SC) 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 be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record". A look at the records must show that ther…

Amitkumar Pravinchandra Reshamwala, Surat vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru / ITO (Int. Tax) Surat, CPC Bengaluru / ITO Surat

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1240/SRT/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1240/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2023-24) (Hybrid Hearing) Amitkumar Pravinchandra Deputy Director Of Income-Tax, बनाम/ Reshamwala Cpc, Bengaluru/Ao (Int. Tax) Vs. B-1004, Arihant Heightsopp Surat Stuti Icon. Auravpath, Palanpur-395 005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Agspr 4047 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 90

…at all there was a mistake, it is something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasons on points on which there may conceivably two opinions. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Balaram vs. Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50 (SC). Hence, the claim was not amenable u/s 154 of the Act. 6.4 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Keshri Metals Pvt. Ltd. 237 ITR 165 (SC) held that there has to be a mistake apparent from record. In other words, a look at the record must show that there has been an error, and that error may be rectified. Reference to documents outside t…

Shri Kamaludeen Seyad Abdul Kareem, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 114/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

…provisions of Section 245D(6B) of I.T.Act, 1961. For this proposition, reliance is :-10-: ITA. Nos.: 3267 to 3272/Chny/2024 & ITA Nos.:106 to 114/Chny/2025 placed upon order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TS Balaram, ITO versus Volkart Brothers 1971, 82 ITR 50 SC. For these reasons, the rectification petition on the above-mentioned issue is not found maintainable and is hereby rejected.” (emphasis supplied) 13. The assessees’ had reiterated their contentions enumerated in the rectification petition filed u/s.245D(6B) of the Act before the ITSC as stated above and considering the detailed submissions, it…

Shri Kamaludeen Seyad Abdul Kareem, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 113/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

…provisions of Section 245D(6B) of I.T.Act, 1961. For this proposition, reliance is :-10-: ITA. Nos.: 3267 to 3272/Chny/2024 & ITA Nos.:106 to 114/Chny/2025 placed upon order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TS Balaram, ITO versus Volkart Brothers 1971, 82 ITR 50 SC. For these reasons, the rectification petition on the above-mentioned issue is not found maintainable and is hereby rejected.” (emphasis supplied) 13. The assessees’ had reiterated their contentions enumerated in the rectification petition filed u/s.245D(6B) of the Act before the ITSC as stated above and considering the detailed submissions, it…

Shri Kamaludeen Seyad Abdul Kareem, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 112/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

…provisions of Section 245D(6B) of I.T.Act, 1961. For this proposition, reliance is :-10-: ITA. Nos.: 3267 to 3272/Chny/2024 & ITA Nos.:106 to 114/Chny/2025 placed upon order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TS Balaram, ITO versus Volkart Brothers 1971, 82 ITR 50 SC. For these reasons, the rectification petition on the above-mentioned issue is not found maintainable and is hereby rejected.” (emphasis supplied) 13. The assessees’ had reiterated their contentions enumerated in the rectification petition filed u/s.245D(6B) of the Act before the ITSC as stated above and considering the detailed submissions, it…

Shri Kamaludeen Yoosufmeeran, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 111/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

…provisions of Section 245D(6B) of I.T.Act, 1961. For this proposition, reliance is :-10-: ITA. Nos.: 3267 to 3272/Chny/2024 & ITA Nos.:106 to 114/Chny/2025 placed upon order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TS Balaram, ITO versus Volkart Brothers 1971, 82 ITR 50 SC. For these reasons, the rectification petition on the above-mentioned issue is not found maintainable and is hereby rejected.” (emphasis supplied) 13. The assessees’ had reiterated their contentions enumerated in the rectification petition filed u/s.245D(6B) of the Act before the ITSC as stated above and considering the detailed submissions, it…

Shri Kamaludeen Yoosufmeeran, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 110/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

…provisions of Section 245D(6B) of I.T.Act, 1961. For this proposition, reliance is :-10-: ITA. Nos.: 3267 to 3272/Chny/2024 & ITA Nos.:106 to 114/Chny/2025 placed upon order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TS Balaram, ITO versus Volkart Brothers 1971, 82 ITR 50 SC. For these reasons, the rectification petition on the above-mentioned issue is not found maintainable and is hereby rejected.” (emphasis supplied) 13. The assessees’ had reiterated their contentions enumerated in the rectification petition filed u/s.245D(6B) of the Act before the ITSC as stated above and considering the detailed submissions, it…

Shri Kamaludeen Yoosufmeeran, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 109/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

…provisions of Section 245D(6B) of I.T.Act, 1961. For this proposition, reliance is :-10-: ITA. Nos.: 3267 to 3272/Chny/2024 & ITA Nos.:106 to 114/Chny/2025 placed upon order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TS Balaram, ITO versus Volkart Brothers 1971, 82 ITR 50 SC. For these reasons, the rectification petition on the above-mentioned issue is not found maintainable and is hereby rejected.” (emphasis supplied) 13. The assessees’ had reiterated their contentions enumerated in the rectification petition filed u/s.245D(6B) of the Act before the ITSC as stated above and considering the detailed submissions, it…

Shri Tes Fathu Rabbani, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 108/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

…provisions of Section 245D(6B) of I.T.Act, 1961. For this proposition, reliance is :-10-: ITA. Nos.: 3267 to 3272/Chny/2024 & ITA Nos.:106 to 114/Chny/2025 placed upon order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TS Balaram, ITO versus Volkart Brothers 1971, 82 ITR 50 SC. For these reasons, the rectification petition on the above-mentioned issue is not found maintainable and is hereby rejected.” (emphasis supplied) 13. The assessees’ had reiterated their contentions enumerated in the rectification petition filed u/s.245D(6B) of the Act before the ITSC as stated above and considering the detailed submissions, it…

Shri Tes Fathu Rabbani, Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Madurai

In the result all the captioned appeals filed by the separate assessees are allowed

ITA 107/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3267, 3268 & 3272/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 Shri. Naina Mohamed Seyad Abdul The Assistant Commissioner Of Kareem, Vs. Income Tax, Survey No.-338/3, House Of Seyad, Central Circle 1, North By-Pass Road, Madurai. Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli - 627 003. [Pan:Ahdps-2976-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 69

…provisions of Section 245D(6B) of I.T.Act, 1961. For this proposition, reliance is :-10-: ITA. Nos.: 3267 to 3272/Chny/2024 & ITA Nos.:106 to 114/Chny/2025 placed upon order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TS Balaram, ITO versus Volkart Brothers 1971, 82 ITR 50 SC. For these reasons, the rectification petition on the above-mentioned issue is not found maintainable and is hereby rejected.” (emphasis supplied) 13. The assessees’ had reiterated their contentions enumerated in the rectification petition filed u/s.245D(6B) of the Act before the ITSC as stated above and considering the detailed submissions, it…