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.

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1253/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

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.…

Town Vividoddesha Sahakari Bhandara Niyamitha, Tumkuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Tumkur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1089/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 80P

…arranting interference u/s. 154 of the Act. It is submitted that the issue involved is highly debatable and not amenable to rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balaram v. Volkart Brothers, 82 ITR 50 (SC). 6. The ld. standing counsel supported the order passed u/s. 154 of the Act and the order of the CIT(Appeals). He relied on the judgment Page 4 of 7 of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The case wa…

M/S Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Co., Junagadh vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle - 1 (1), Rajkot - Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 65/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Samir Jani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…sue of such allowance M/s. Chokshi Vachhraj Makanji & Company vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2017-18 being debatable in nature no disallowance could have been made by way of an order u/s. 154 as held by the Apex Court in the case of T.S.Balaram , ITO v. Volkart Brothers 82 ITR 50, CIT v. Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. 228 ITR 463 and Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. v. CIT 93 taxmann.com (Bombay). The disallowance is prayed for deletion. 3) The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that the provisions of Section 43B overrides Section 36 (1) (va) and that disallowance under Section 36 (1) (va) was applicable only if the said contribution are n…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Nagpur vs. M/S Spacewood Office Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 162/NAG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sgri Abhay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154

…he assessee on 08.03.2016. These relevant documents duly form part of the case records before us at pages 3 to 6 of the assessee’s paper book. That being the case, we quote hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in T.S. Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) that purpose of sec.154 rectification is only to deal with apparent mistakes on record than those involving detailed roving enquiries and confirm the CIT(A)'s action reversing the Assessing Officer’s impugned action to this effect. Ordered accordingly. 5. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court…

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Jyoti Cnc Automation Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 24/RJT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

…t of prior period and there is no error in computation as one year was not included in education cess and surcharge. Assessment Year: 2014-15 Page 4 of 4 The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros., 82 ITR 50. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. After going through the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tulsyan (supra) as well as decision which was heavily relied in the case of Kerala Feeds Limited (supra), it is found that in the present assessee’s case the Revenue has continuously whi…

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna vs. Kumar Arunodaya, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 98/PAT/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

…ection 154 of the ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya Act cannot be invoked. In defense of arguments the Ld. A.R relied on the series of decision namely a) T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros ( 1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), and ITO, North Satara vs . Arvind N. Mafatlal & Ors. (1962) 045 ITR 0271 (SC). The Ld. A.R submitted that in view of the ratio laid down in the above decisions the appeal of the revenue may kindly be dismissed by upholding the order of ld CIT(A). 10. The Ld. D.R on the other hand relied on the order of AO and submitted that the AO has power…

Kumar Arunodaya, Patna vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 6, Patna [New – Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, Patna]

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 96/PAT/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

…ection 154 of the ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya Act cannot be invoked. In defense of arguments the Ld. A.R relied on the series of decision namely a) T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros ( 1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), and ITO, North Satara vs . Arvind N. Mafatlal & Ors. (1962) 045 ITR 0271 (SC). The Ld. A.R submitted that in view of the ratio laid down in the above decisions the appeal of the revenue may kindly be dismissed by upholding the order of ld CIT(A). 10. The Ld. D.R on the other hand relied on the order of AO and submitted that the AO has power…

ACIT, Circle-4, Patna vs. Kumar Arunodaya, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 94/PAT/2020[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

…ection 154 of the ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya Act cannot be invoked. In defense of arguments the Ld. A.R relied on the series of decision namely a) T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros ( 1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), and ITO, North Satara vs . Arvind N. Mafatlal & Ors. (1962) 045 ITR 0271 (SC). The Ld. A.R submitted that in view of the ratio laid down in the above decisions the appeal of the revenue may kindly be dismissed by upholding the order of ld CIT(A). 10. The Ld. D.R on the other hand relied on the order of AO and submitted that the AO has power…

DCIT, Circle-4, Patna vs. Kumar Arunodaya, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 89/PAT/2020[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

…ection 154 of the ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya Act cannot be invoked. In defense of arguments the Ld. A.R relied on the series of decision namely a) T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros ( 1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), and ITO, North Satara vs . Arvind N. Mafatlal & Ors. (1962) 045 ITR 0271 (SC). The Ld. A.R submitted that in view of the ratio laid down in the above decisions the appeal of the revenue may kindly be dismissed by upholding the order of ld CIT(A). 10. The Ld. D.R on the other hand relied on the order of AO and submitted that the AO has power…

Kumar Arunosaya, Patna vs. A.O., Circle-6, Patna

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 33/PAT/2020[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

…ection 154 of the ITA Nos. 96 & 98/PAT/2021 C.O Nos. 2 & 3/ PAT/2021 AY: 2012-13,2013-14 ,2016-17 Kumar Arunodaya Act cannot be invoked. In defense of arguments the Ld. A.R relied on the series of decision namely a) T.S. Balaram, ITO vs. Volkart Bros ( 1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), and ITO, North Satara vs . Arvind N. Mafatlal & Ors. (1962) 045 ITR 0271 (SC). The Ld. A.R submitted that in view of the ratio laid down in the above decisions the appeal of the revenue may kindly be dismissed by upholding the order of ld CIT(A). 10. The Ld. D.R on the other hand relied on the order of AO and submitted that the AO has power…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Cuddallore vs. M/S Villupuram District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Villupuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 981/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…he AR is clearly not a patent mistake apparent from records and is clearly a debatable issue as evidenced by the contradictory case laws relied upon by the AO and AR on this issue. Now, the Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 40, 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 record." A look at the records must show that there has be…

The Villupuram District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Villupuram vs. ACIT, Circle-I, Cuddalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 858/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…he AR is clearly not a patent mistake apparent from records and is clearly a debatable issue as evidenced by the contradictory case laws relied upon by the AO and AR on this issue. Now, the Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 40, 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 record." A look at the records must show that there has be…

The Villupuram District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Villupuram vs. ACIT, Circle-II, Cuddalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 857/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…he AR is clearly not a patent mistake apparent from records and is clearly a debatable issue as evidenced by the contradictory case laws relied upon by the AO and AR on this issue. Now, the Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 40, 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 record." A look at the records must show that there has be…

The Villupuram District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Villupuram vs. DCIT, Villupuram Circle, Villupruam

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 856/CHNY/2020[202-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…he AR is clearly not a patent mistake apparent from records and is clearly a debatable issue as evidenced by the contradictory case laws relied upon by the AO and AR on this issue. Now, the Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 40, 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 record." A look at the records must show that there has be…

The Villupuram District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Villupuram vs. DCIT, Villupuram Circle, Villupuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 855/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…he AR is clearly not a patent mistake apparent from records and is clearly a debatable issue as evidenced by the contradictory case laws relied upon by the AO and AR on this issue. Now, the Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 40, 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 record." A look at the records must show that there has be…

The Villupuram District Central Coopertative Bank Ltd., Villupuram vs. DCIT, Villupuram Circle, Villupuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 854/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…he AR is clearly not a patent mistake apparent from records and is clearly a debatable issue as evidenced by the contradictory case laws relied upon by the AO and AR on this issue. Now, the Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 40, 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 record." A look at the records must show that there has be…

The Cuddalore District Central Co-Op Bank Ltd., Cuddalore vs. DCIT Cuddalore Circle, Cuddalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2645/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.B. Som, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

…he AR is clearly not a patent mistake apparent from records and is clearly a debatable issue as evidenced by the contradictory case laws relied upon by the AO and AR on this issue. Now, the Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v Volkart Bros (1971) 82 ITR 40, 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 record." A look at the records must show that there has be…

ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ixia Technologies Pvt. Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2292/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner Of Ixia Technologies Pvt. Income-Tax, Circle-2(1), Limited (Now Merged With Kolkata. Keysight Technologies India Vs. Pvt. Limited) Infinity Tower-Ii, Block-Gp, Sector-V, 8Th Floor, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700091. (Pan: Aaccc5468K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner of Ixia Technologies Pvt. Income-tax, Circle-2(1), Limited (now merged with Kolkata. Keysight Technologies India Vs. Pvt. Limited) Infinity Tower-II, Block-GP, Sector-V, 8th Floor, Salt lake City, Kolkata-700091. (PAN: AACCC5468K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Rahul Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 11.10.2023 ORDER PER GIRISH…

Commissioner of Income Tax Exemptions Kolkata vs. M/S Tata Medical Centre Trust

Appeal stands dismissed and the connected

ITAT/186/2023HC Calcutta26 Sept 2023

Bench: The Assessing Officer In The Course Of The Proceedings Subsequent To The Order Passed Under Section 148A(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19Th April, 2023. 2. During The Pendency Of The Proceedings The Assessment Has Been Completed & The Assessment Order Has Been Passed On 13.03.2025 Which Is Sought To Be Brought

For Appellant: Mr. Pranit Bag, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 154

…We have elaborately heard the learned senior standing counsel on the above submissions. The learned senior standing counsel has relied upon the decision in the case of T.S. Balaram, Income-tax Officer –versus- Volkart Brothers, reported in 5 (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC); Commissioner of Income-tax –versus- Sardari Lal & Co., reported in (2002) 120 Taxman 595 (Delhi) and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-III, Kolkata –versus- M/s. West Bengal Fisheries Corporation Ltd. In ITA/71/2018 dated 21.05.2024 to explain the circumstances under which th…

First International Business Ltd., Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 46/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.46/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154oSection 194CSection 250Section 40

…tion U/s 154. The Section 154 is delt with rectification apparent from the record. For clear understanding about the application of Sec 154, we respectfully relied on the order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "From what has been said above, it is clear that the question whether section 17(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was applicable to the case of the first respondent is not free from doubt. Therefore, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in thinking that on that question there can be n…