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.

The South Indian Bank Limited, Thrissur vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Thrissur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 232/COCH/2024[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Naresh S., CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 153Section 154Section 220(2)Section 234DSection 244ASection 244aSection 250

…e Act as its purpose is to deal with the apparent mistake on record pertaining to previous year 2003-04 only. Be that as it may, we are of the view that rectification is not meant to deal with detailed fishing enquiries TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). We thus reject the assessee’s last substantive ground. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in very terms. ITA No. 233/Coch/2024 – AY : 2006-07 5. The assessee has raised it’s sole substantive ground claiming section 244A interest inter alia for the sole reason that his tribunal had passed its order on 30.0…

P.K Sajeev & Company, Idukki vs. Income Tax Officer, Thodupuzha

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 684/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhp.K. Sajeev & Company The Income Tax Officer 8/139A, Adimali Ward - 3, Thodupuzha Vs. Idukki 685 561 [Pan: Aaefp2144C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

…-1, of the depreciation schedule, in the Income Tax Rules. 3. We are afraid that such a recourse to detailed adjudication by way of roving enquiries is nowhere permissible in sec.154 rectification proceedings going by TS Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). Their lordships' have settled the law long back that such detailed enquiries are very well beyond the purview of sec. 154 procedure which is meant only to deal with apparent mistakes on record. We accordingly accept the assessee's substantive grounds raised herein. Ordered accordingly. 4. This assessee's appeal is allowed in above terms. Or…

Sudarshan Bhagwandas Naval, Jalgaon vs. PCIT (Central Circle 1 Nagpur), Nagpur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 600/PUN/2024[AY 2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.600/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sudarshan Bhagwandas Vs. Pcit (Central), Nagpur. Naval, Naval Multispecialty Hospital, Near Bhaskar Market, Jilla Peth, M.J. College Road, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aafpn7830C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Abhishek K. Choksy & Shri Ankit Davda Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19 Arises Against The Pcit (Central), Nagpur’S Order Dated 01.02.2024 Passed In Case No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1060387551(1) Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek K. Choksy &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 263(1)

…nt deserves to be declined only as an issue which is subject matter of valuation to be followed by the objection thereto, would hardly be treated as an apparent mistake so as to attract section 154 rectification as per T.S. Balaram ITO vs. Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC). Rejected accordingly. 10. Learned counsel’s last argument is that the PCIT (Central), Nagpur did not have jurisdiction in section 263 revision proceedings once the Assessing Officer had framed his assessment at Nashik, therefore, the order under challenge before us deserves to be annulled on this jurisdictional aspect as well. We find that th…

Sheela Davis, Thrissur vs. The ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Guruvayoor, Thrissur

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 312/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154oSection 44A

…ready come on record that the learned assessing authority had duly accepted the assessee’s sec.154 rectification petition thereby followed by re-computation of her taxable income either. That being the case, we quote TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) that the assessee’s sole ground in the instant appeal in fact involve 6 ITA.No.312/COCH./2024 detailed investigation/enquiries which is no more permissible u/sec.154 rectification proceedings as the latter provision is meant to deal with the mistakes apparent on record. Ordered accordingly. 4. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above ter…

Aviaxpert Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 3(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 87/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.87/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Avia Xpert Pvt. Ltd. Ito, E-178, East Of Kailash, Vs. Ward 3(1), New Delhi. C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaica7960L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 36(1)(va)

…atable legal issue cannot be said to be a “mistake apparent from record” and, therefore, no disallowance in respect of such debatable legal claim can be made while passing rectification order u/s 154 of the Act: 1. ITO vs. M/s Volkart Brothers & Ors [(1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)] 2. CIT Vs. Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. [(1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC)] 3. CIT Vs. Krishak Bharati Co-opeative Ltd. [(2004) 266 ITR 208 (Del)(HC)] 4. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. vs. CIT [(2018) 404 ITR 564 (Bom) (HC)] 5. Khatau Junkar Ltd. vs. DCIT [(1992) 196 ITR 55 (Bom) (HC)]. 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the…

Om Infra Limited, Jaipur Rajasthan vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

ITA 811/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 80Section 801C(2)(b)Section 80I

…something, which appears to be ex facie that it is incapable of argument or debate. The mistake can be regarded as 'apparent only when it is glaring, obvious of self-evident mistake. The Supreme Court, in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO V. Volkart Bros: [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC), has held that a mistake apparent from record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there can conceivably be two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not mistake apparent from the record [Banswara Syntex Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2007) 1…

Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-1(3), Nagpur vs. M/S Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 163/NAG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 154

…le matter and, therefore, it does not come within the purview of section 154. [Para 17]" (Emphasis Supplied) M/s. Spacewood Furnitures Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.163/Nag./2019 2. CIT v. Hackbridge Hewittic & Easun Ltd (220 Taxman 171) (Mad HC) ITO v. Volkart Brothers (82 ITR 50) (SC). 4. CIT v. R. K. Shrivastav (HUF) (298 ITR 53) (Delhi HC). 5.7 Considering the facts and circumstances and judicial precedents cited, the appellant deserves to succeed as the disallowance of prior-period expenses of Rs.17,65,162/- cannot be subject matter of rectification under section 154 of the Act. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete t…

ITO-6(1), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 261/LKW/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.261/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1), Lucknow . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Namita Pandey [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250

…ous mistake glaring or appearing on the face of the record and requiring no examination or verification whatsoever by long-drawn process can be rectified in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘TS Balram (ITO) Vs M/s Volkart Bros.’ [1971, 82 ITR 40 (SC)]. 16. Without multiplying the authority on the issue, in view of the former judicial precedents we find no fault in reversing the inadvertent allowance of impugned item ‘provision for loss in investment’ by way of rectification u/s 154 of the Act by the Ld. AO. In view thereof the impugned order tearing down the rectification cannot continue…

Chinmaya Educational Society, Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Uhf, Nauni, Solan vs. ITO Ward Exemptions, Solan

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 528/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 528/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Chinmaya Educational Society, Vs. The Ito, Chinmaya Vidyalaya,, Ward Exemptions, बनाम Uhf, Nauni, Solan 172230 Solan Himachal Pradesh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaatc2581J अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04 .07.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154

…to any mistake apparent from the record. 4.4 It is matter of record that the assessee has not filed any argument in the present appeal in respect of this ground. However, before the Assessing Officer his argument was based upon the ratio of Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50(SC). The assessee apparently had 528-Chd-2022 Chinmaya Educational Society, Solan 6 incorrectly relied upon the ratio of Volkart Brothers as the Honble Supreme Court in this case had interpreted mistake apparent from record to be a patent mistake on which there cannot be two opinions. It is also matter of record that the said order of processing…

Hl Kejriwal Memorial Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1021/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: the appeal hearing."

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule, (Addl. CIT) SR. D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 H L Kejriwal Memorial Assistant Director of Trust Income Tax, CPC C/o. Uma Kejriwal, ITO 19(2)104, Kejriwal House, Vs. Piramaz Chamber, 7 Naoroji Gamadia Road, Mumbai- 560500. Off. Peddar Road, Mumbai- 400026. PAN: AAATH8991F (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R. Revenue by : Shri P. D. Chougule, (Addl. CIT) SR. D.R. Date of Hearing : 13 . 06 . 2024 Date of Pronouncement : 27 . 06 . 2024 O…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(3), Pune vs. Gopal Janardan Tambe, Pune

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

ITA 894/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(vii)

…e any rectification u/s 154 of the IT Act to the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act on the debatable issues or where there is change of opinion. The ld. counsel for the assessee also relied on following decisions :- (i) ITO vs. Volkart Brothers, 82 ITR 50 (SC). (ii) Mubarak Gafur Korabu vs. ITO, 117 taxmann.com 828 (Pune – Trib.) (iii) Blue Star Engineering Co. (Bombay) (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 73 ITR 283 (Bombay). (iv) CIT vs. S. S. Gupta, 257 ITR 440 (Rajasthan). 8. We have heard learned counsels from both the sides & perused the material available on record. We find that the case of the respondent asse…

Prerna Ritesh Rathi, Amravati vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 291/NAG/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80C

…facto sec.143(1) intimation. All these facts sufficiently indicate that such an exercise enquiring detail factual verification could hardly be treated as an apparent mistake rectifiable u/sec.154 of the Act in light of T S Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). Faced with this situation, I decline the assessee’s instant appeal in very terms with a rider that she would be indeed at liberty to take recourse to regular appeal proceedings, if so advised. Ordered accordingly. 4. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19.04.2024. [SATBEER SINGH GODARA]…

Adiwasi Dudhg Utpadak Krishi Purak Sangh, Nndurbar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Dhule

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 413/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80P

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.413/PUN./2024 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Adiwasi Dudhg Utpadak Krishi Purak Sangh, Near Income Tax Officer, Market Committee, Near Ward-1, C/o. Income Tax vs. Market Area, Market Road, Office, Opp. MSEB Office, Sakri NANDURBAR – 425 412 Road, DHULE – 424 001. Maharashtra. Maharashtra. PAN AAAAA1276D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri Manish Mehta Date of Hearing : 22.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17.04.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s a…

Arvind Prabhakar Bajirao, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 376/NAG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur17 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Arvind BajiraoFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

…essee had not declared all 5 ITA.No.376/NAG./2022 the relevant figures correctly in his return/computation which resulted in CPC’s intimation allegedly “processing” his return. Faced with this situation, I hereby quote T S Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) that such an instance requiring detailed enquiries could not be taken as an apparent mistake deserving rectification u/sec.154 of the Act. I thus reject the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal with a rider that he shall be indeed at liberty to take recourse to regular appeal proceedings as per law, if so advised.…

Kanta, Bhiwani vs. ITO Ward-1, Bhiwani

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2213/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2010-11 Smt. Kanta Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Kanta Brick Kiln Co., Ward-1, Vpo Kayla Bhiwani, Bhiwani Haryana – 127021 (Pan: Ceppk1186J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 68

…s a settled law that a mistake which can be established only with a long-drawn process of reasoning cannot be a mistake apparent from record. To support her aforesaid contention, 5 she relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) as T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers dated 05.08.1971. In view of the aforesaid, Ld. AR has submitted that the order passed u/s. 154 of the Act dated 14.07.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence, the same may be quashed. 6. Ld. Sr. (DR) supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the…

Mahesh Ram Vittal, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-5(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1078/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Chaugule, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251

…it should be rectified. Page 5 of 10 4. Accordingly, the assessee was issued notice on 01/11/2017 and the assessee furnished reply dated 22/11/2017 giving reference of the Hon’ble Supreme Court order in the case of TS Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart Brother [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) and the Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Lakshmi Prasad Lahkar [1996] 220 ITR 100 Gauhati. The assessee explained that the sec. 154 of the Act cannot be invoked on debatable issue. The submission of the assessee were examined by the AO and the AO referred to sec. 5(1) ( c ) of the Act and noted that the assessee is liable to offer glo…

The Nehru Memorial Education Society, Kanhangad vs. ITO Exemptions, Kannur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 159/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Nehru Memorial The Income Tax Officer Education Society (Exemptions), Kannur Lakshmi Nivas Vs. Kanhangad - 671315 Kasaragod [Pan:Aabtt0633M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2

…ent from record’, excluding debatable issues, i.e., which do not admit of conceivably two views, and limiting the said view as on the basis of the record and the clear law in the matter. The law in the matter is well-settled, viz. ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC); CIT v. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. [1997] 228 ITR 463 (SC). That is to say, it should be a mistake and, two, glaring from the record. This, though may not be of much consequence in the instant case inasmuch as the scope for interference to the returned income u/s. 143(1)(a) is itself severely restricted, being limited to specified adjustments based…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Amravati vs. Shri Pramod Marotrao Waylalwar, Nagpur

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 102/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Pavan VedFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y Marathe, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(1)Section 251(1)(a)

…estion involving subjective adjudication of comparables in the assessee’s line of business could hardly be treated as an instance of rectification u/sec.154 proceedings going by hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). Their lordships have settled the law longback that purpose of sec.154 rectification is only to deal with an apparent mistakes on record than those involving detailed roving enquiries. We further wish to emphasize that the NFAC’s detailed discussion has nowhere reversed the Assessing Officer’s categoric findings on this legal aspect of maintai…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Kolhapur vs. Sadashivrao Mandlik Kagal Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Kolhapur

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 2730/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Nitin Patil
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 32

…invoking sec.154 rectification for the purpose of carrying-out a detailed exercise of re-computing the assessee’s depreciation/ additional depreciation could hardly be held as sustainable in law in principle in light of TS Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC). Their lordship’s have settled the law long back that the purpose of sec.154 rectification is to deal with the apparent mistakes on record than carrying-out detailed roving enquiries. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the CIT(A)'s has already termed the impugned rectification as a debatable one which further strengthens the assessee’s…

Maharashtra Feeds P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1254/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 154Section 208Section 234ASection 234CSection 243CSection 245CSection 245DSection 245D(1)Section 245D(4)

…sion. A mistake to be covered u/s 154 of the Act should be apparent from the record and should not involve any debatable issue where two opinions can be formed. It should be obvious and patent. It has been held in T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) 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 the points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record. It has also been held in CIT vs. Hero Cycle Pvt.…