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 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 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.

Ishwar Ispat Industries Private Limited, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 172/RPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.172/Rpr/2018 ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Ishwar Ispat Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit-2(1), Raipur Plot No.168, Sector-C, Industrial Area, Urla, Raipur (C.G.) Pan No. : Aabci 4258 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR

Section 154

…was also submitted by the ld. AR that the expenditure incurred on the replacement of moulds subsequent to the commencement of business would be revenue expenditure. In this regard, ld. AR relied on the following case laws :- i) Volkart Brothers & Ors. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) ii) Satish Kumar Aggarwal (2011) 8 ITR 424 (Delhi) iii) Tata Communications Ltd. (2014) 163 TTJ 106 (Mum) iv) Kalpesh S. Patel (2015) 44 CCH 350 (Ahd); and v) S.R.Industries Ltd. (2016) 156 ITD 125 (Chandigarh) Mysore Spun Pipe Pvt. Ltd. 194 ITR 159 (Kar) vi) 5. On other hand, ld. Sr. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 6. We hav…

M/S R S Cargo, Satna vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Processing Centre, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 12/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr.DR

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

…r on the merits of the additions – even as the same agrees with that expressed by the Tribunal in Nikhil Mohine (supra)(see para 3.1 of this order), is of little consequence in view of the limited scope of an amendment u/s. 154 (ITO v. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC)), precluding debatable issues, even as our decision in the instant case, as would be apparent from the foregoing, is based on the conflict of judicial opinion in the matter, duly noted in the Explanatory Notes to the Provisions of the Finance Bill, 2021, explaining that to be the reason for effecting the amendments per the said Explanations. T…

Jaydeep Pukhraj Jain, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2), Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1358/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1358/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Jaydeep Pukhraj Jain, The Income Tax Officer, ‘White House’ 182, Sadashiv Vs Ward-3(2), Pune. Peth Pune, Pune – 411030. . Pan: Afapj 9915 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranik – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune’S Order Dated 28.02.2017 Passed In Appeal No.Pn/Cit(A)- 4/Ito, Ward 3(2), Pune/344, 2014-15/758, In Proceedings U/S.154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 28Section 41(1)Section 68

…r as the same amounts to re- visiting the earlier findings by a long drawn process. We thus reject Revenue’s vehement arguments supporting the impugned rectification in light of hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in T.S.Balaram Vs. Volkart Brothers [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) holding that sec 154 rectification is permissible in an instance of an obvious or patent mistake only. The impugned rectification is annulled for this precise reason alone. All other pleadings stand rendered academic. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th August, 2022. (DR. DIPAK P. RIP…

International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage Employees Provident Fund Trust, New Delhi vs. DDIT (E) Trust Circle-2, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 704/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: ShriAnujGarg, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(25)(ii)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

…nder section 143(1) could not have been rectified to allow exemption under section 10(25)(ii). 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. In the case under consideration it is apparent that no claim of exemption was made under section 10(25)(ii) and the claim was under specific clauses of section 10, i.e., 10(…

International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage Employees Provident Fund Trust, New Delhi vs. DDIT (E) Trust Circle-2, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 703/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: ShriAnujGarg, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(25)(ii)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

Smt. Monica Chattopadhya, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-28(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2369/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesmt. Monica Chattopadhya V. Acit – Circle – 28(2) 321, Reena Complex Tower No. 6 R.N. Road, Vidyavihar (W) Vashi Railway Commercial Complex Navi Mumbai-400703 Mumbai – 400086 Pan: Ajipc1975D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Malav P. Sheth Department By : Mahita Nair

For Appellant: Malav P. ShethFor Respondent: Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 54

…ance is placed on the following decisions including Hon'ble APEX COURT and JURISDICTIONAL High Court decisions wherein it is held that proceedings u/s 154 cannot be resorted to for deciding issues which are debatable. T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC) A mistake apparent from 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. Arvind N. Mafatlal v. T.A. Balakrishnan, Dy. CED [1…

Himalayaputra Aviation Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 7904/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 143(3)Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2013-14] Himalayaputra Aviation ltd. ACIT, 54JA Annexe, BasantLok, Cricle-11(2), Vasant Vihar, Vs New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110057 PAN-AACCH7900F Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Praveen Kumar, CA Revenue by Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement .07.2022 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM, This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, New Delhi, dated 24.07.2019 pertaini…

Smt. Chetna Jain vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed and the order passed

ITAT/431/2016HC Calcutta20 Jul 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 20Th July, 2022. Appearance :- Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. ….For Appellant. Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv. …For Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 199Section 203Section 260A

…ke apparent from the record for the purposes of Section 154 of the Act. In the said decision, an earlier decision of the High Court of Mad in T. Manickavasagam Chettiar V. CIT [1983] 143 ITR 269 (Mad.) was followed. In T.S. Balaram ITO V. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 (SC), 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 be conceivably two opinions. The aforementioned decisions were taken note of by the High Court of Madras in the case of Commiss…

Parijat Trust, New Delhi vs. ACIT-CPC, Bangalore

Appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 866/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154Section 35ASection 80Section 80G

…f entities claiming exemption under section 11, the income is not included in total income. 4.6 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. In the case of Hotz Hotels Pvt Ltd. vs/CIT (2001) 118 -Taxman 94 (Delhi) - wherein the Hon'ble Court have held that:- 5. “A bare look at section 154 makes it clear that a mi…

Parijat Trust, New Delhi vs. DCIT-CPC, Bangalore

Appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 5088/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154Section 35ASection 80Section 80G

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1723/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Years: 2007-08 Dr.Reddy’S Laboratories Vs. Dcit,Circle-17(1) Limited Hyderabad 8-2-337, Road No.3 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034

For Appellant: Shri S.P.ChidambaramFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai,CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

…1 Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member AND Shri K.Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member Assessment Years: 2007-08 Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories Vs. DCIT,Circle-17(1) Limited Hyderabad 8-2-337, Road No.3 Banjara Hills Hyderabad-500 034 PAN : AAACD7999Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate Revenue by: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai,CIT-DR Date of hearing: 05.07.2022 Date of pronouncement: 08.07.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, A.M.: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed agai…

Lakshmi Shankar Gumudavelli, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(4), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA No. 144/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee is allowed, whereas ITA No

ITA 148/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Paruchuri, Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 154

…firm is a highly debatable issue. It has been held in various decisions that provisions u/s. 154 for rectification of the order cannot be applied to debatable issues. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S.Balaram vs Volkart Brothers reported in (1971) 82 ITR 50 has held that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points which there may be conceivably two opinions. It was held that a decision on a debatable point is not a mistake apparent from the record. I, therefore set aside the order of th…

Lakshmi Shankar Gumudavelli, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(4), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA No. 144/Hyd/2020 filed by the assessee is allowed, whereas ITA No

ITA 144/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Paruchuri, Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 154

M/S Akme Harmony Apartments Owners Welfare Association, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 993/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. D.D. Shamala, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 167BSection 234

…on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions [CIT v. Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd., [2005] 279 ITR 477[Guj]] and as held in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, Income-tax Officer Vs. Volkart Brothers, [1971] 82 ITR 50 [SC]. (iii) Therefore, the action of the learned assessing officer in passing the order under section 154 of the Act on an issue which is debatable is impermissible in law as held by the Hon'ble Courts as referred above. The issue of applicability of the provisions of section 167 B of the Act is debatable for the reasons as mentioned in the earlie…

Neeraj Kumar Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/HYD/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy

Section 139(5)Section 154

…n, cannot be equated with rectification of mistake apparent from record as envisaged in section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (e) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have followed the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of ITO v. Volkart Brothers and Others, 82 ITR 50 (S.C.) with regard to mistake apparent from record that qualities for an action u/s 154 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating on merits all the grounds of appeal and additional grounds of appeal taken before him. 4 (a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing ground nos. 9 to 18 taken before him, by observing that they pertained to the…

Shapoorji Pallonji Bumi Armada P.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT -1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1353/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us.

Section 154

…ITA No.: 1353/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI J BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Sandeep S Karhail (Judicial Member)] ITA No.: 1353/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 Shapoorji Pallonji Bumi Armada Pvt Ltd .…………………………Appellant 602, Trade Centre, BKC, Opp MTNL Office Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 [PAN: AABCF6263G] Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai ……………...…………Respondent Appearances by: Mukesh Butani, alongwith Karishma Phatarphkar, Pratik Poddar and Rohan Vasuna for the appellant Vatsala Jha for the re…

Sp Armada Oil Exploration P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-3(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1352/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Us.

Section 154

…ITA No.: 1352/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI J BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Sandeep S Karhail (Judicial Member)] ITA No.: 1352/Mum/2021 Assessment year: 2016-17 SP Armada Oil Exploration Limited .…………………………Appellant 602, Trade Centre, BKC, Opp MTNL Office Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 [PAN: AAQCS7983P] Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai ……………...…………Respondent Appearances by: Mukesh Butani, alongwith Karishma Phatarphkar, Pratik Poddar and Rohan Vasuna for the appellant Vatsala Jha for the respon…

DCIT, Cr-7, Jaipur vs. Shri Anil Gupta, Jaipur

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

ITA 11/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hearing” Dcit Vs. Shri Anil Gupta

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal ( C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)a fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

…n (1) of section 200A; (d) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 206CB. From the above provisions it can be noted that only the mistake apparent from record can be rectified u/s 154. Hon’ble Supreme Courtin case of ITOVs. Volkart Bros. [1971] 82 ITR 50 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 may conceivably be two options. A DCIT vs. Shri Anil Gupta decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record. In the present case, w…

Periyasamy Pillai Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO Exemptions Ward 4, Chennai

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

ITA 2824/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2824/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. Periyasamy Pillai Educational The Income Tax Officer Trust, No. 4, Aishwarya Complex, Vs. (Exemptions), Ward 4, 41, Duraisamy Road, T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aaatp9255C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 17, Chennai, Dated 05.07.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Dismissing The Appeal Is Contrary To Law, Erroneous & Unsustainable On The Facts Of The Case. 2. The Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Order Of The Officer That The Issue Of Assessing Corpus Donation As Income Of The Trust Would Not Fall For Consideration Under Sec.154 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154

…al income. The petition filed by the assessee under section 154 of the Act was dismissed by the Assessing Officer and the reasons given are reproduced hereinabove. On appeal, by following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Volkart India 82 ITR 50(SC) as well as in the case of CIT v. 6 I.T.A. No.2824/Chny/18 Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. (1997) 94 Taxman 271 (SC), the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: “4. Decision: I have considered the observations of the Assessing Officer and the submissions made by the appellant. To resolve the issue on hand, it is relevant t…

State Bank of India Financial Reporting & Taxation Dept., Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 2 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 807/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT–DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234DSection 244ASection 250

…eipt of the refund by the assessee, also renders this issue to be a contentious issue, which requires long-drawn process of reasoning and arguments from both the sides. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer v/s Volkart Brothers, [1971] 82 ITR 50, held that for initiating proceedings under section 154 of the Act, the mistake apparent from record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. In view of the State Bank of India ITA No.807/Mum./2019 above and as is evi…