← All Phrases

“Section 254(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 254Section 254(2)468 judgments

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ARKADIN CONFER INDIA PVT. LTD., NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No:- 6037/Del/2015

ITA 6037/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN

ERICSSON INDIA GLOBAL SERVICES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT SPL. RANGE 3, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2367/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Paras S. Savla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.S. Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(13)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 254(2)Section 92C

appeal was originally decided by the Tribunal vide Order dated 10th July, 2024. Thereafter, the assessee filed Miscellaneous Application i.e., M.A. No.25/Del/2025 under Section 254(2) of the Act stating that the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee vide Application dated 17/4/2023 for admission of additional grounds under

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 188/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

Section 132Section 254(2)Section 271DSection 275Section 275(1)(c)

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

SHREE KESHAV CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,JUNAGADH vs. THE DCIT/ACIT, CIR 1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

ITA 794/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court is a mistake apparent on record, therefore, the above orders of the jurisdictional Tribunal require rectification under section 254 (2) of the Act. In this regard, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench of Rajkot, in the above decisions, has clearly considered ... Therefore, we note that above decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench, are speaking and reasoned decisions and hence, do not require rectification under section 254(2) of the Act, as judicial discipline has been observed in these above decisions, by following the old jurisdictional, Gujarat High Court judgements(supra), which

SHREE KESHAV CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,JUNAGADH vs. THE DCIT/ACIT, CIR - 1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

ITA 793/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court is a mistake apparent on record, therefore, the above orders of the jurisdictional Tribunal require rectification under section 254 (2) of the Act. In this regard, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench of Rajkot, in the above decisions, has clearly considered ... Therefore, we note that above decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench, are speaking and reasoned decisions and hence, do not require rectification under section 254(2) of the Act, as judicial discipline has been observed in these above decisions, by following the old jurisdictional, Gujarat High Court judgements(supra), which

E FACTOR ADVENTURE TOURISM PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. THE DCIT, CC-13, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3006/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआअसं.3006/धिल्ली/2025(नि.व. 2017-18) E Factor Adventure Tourism P. Ltd., 101 A, Kundan Kutir, Hari Nagar, Ashram, New Delhi 110014 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aabce-7871-R बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, .....प्रनिवादी/Respondent Central Circle-13, New Delhi 110055 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By: Shri S.K Chaturvedi, Chartered Accountant प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2026 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-26, New Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 06.03.2025, For Ay 2017-18 In Proceedings U/S.154 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri S.K Chaturvedi, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

supra), held that a subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court of India cannot be a ground for invoking provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. Section 254(2) of the Act can be invoked to rectify any mistake apparent from record and not otherwise. Admittedly, on the date when ... could not be said that there was any error or mistake apparent on record giving jurisdiction 5 to the Tribunal to invoke section 254(2) of the Act. The relevant excepts of the judgement rendered in the case of Infantry Security and Facilities vs. ITO (supra) are reproduced herein under

SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT CO OP PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,SURENDRANAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 429/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 429/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2014-15) Surendranagar District Co. Op. Acit, Circle, Producers Union Ltd. Vs. Surendranagar-363035 Plot No.249, Phase 2 Gidc Market Yard Circle, Sursagar Dairy, Wadhwan Road, Surendranagar-363035 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas8375B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : Heard On 09/10/2025, Refixed For Clarification On 03.11.2025 & Finally Heard On 02.02.2026 : 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P(2)(b)Section 80P(2)(d)

Jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court is a mistake apparent on record, therefore, the above orders of the jurisdictional Tribunal require rectification under section 254 (2) of the Act.In this regard, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench of Rajkot, in the above decisions, has clearly considered the oldjudgments rendered ... Therefore, we note that above decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench, are speaking and reasoned decisions and hence, do not require rectification under section 254(2) of the Act, as judicial discipline has been observed in these above decisions, by following the old jurisdictional, Gujarat High Court judgements(supra), which

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1697/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 115J

nsubmissions made by the assessee were not considered and appreciated\nby this Tribunal which constituted, mistake apparent on record within the\nmeaning of section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly this Tribunal had disposed\nof that miscellaneous application in MA No.26/Kol/2016 arising out of ITA\nNO.1032/Kol/2012

DCIT, CIR-5(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S COAL INDIA LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1696/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 115J

nsubmissions made by the assessee were not considered and appreciated\nby this Tribunal which constituted, mistake apparent on record within the\nmeaning of section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly this Tribunal had disposed\nof that miscellaneous application in MA No.26/Kol/2016 arising out of ITA\nNO.1032/Kol/2012

M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1406/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 115J

nsubmissions made by the assessee were not considered and appreciated\nby this Tribunal which constituted, mistake apparent on record within the\nmeaning of section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly this Tribunal had disposed\nof that miscellaneous application in MA No.26/Kol/2016 arising out of ITA\nNO.1032/Kol/2012

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

ITA 623/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 250

submissions made by the assessee were not considered and appreciated by this Tribunal which constituted, mistake apparent on record within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly this Tribunal had disposed of that miscellaneous application in MA No.26/Kol/2016 arising out of ITA NO.1032/Kol/2012

DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. COAL INDIA LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 622/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2011-12
Section 115J

nsubmissions made by the assessee were not considered and appreciated\nby this Tribunal which constituted, mistake apparent on record within the\nmeaning of section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly this Tribunal had disposed\nof that miscellaneous application in MA No.26/Kol/2016 arising out of ITA\nNO.1032/Kol/2012

COAL INDIA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 467/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 115J

nsubmissions made by the assessee were not considered and appreciated\nby this Tribunal which constituted, mistake apparent on record within the\nmeaning of section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly this Tribunal had disposed\nof that miscellaneous application in MA No.26/Kol/2016 arising out of ITA\nNO.1032/Kol/2012

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX vs. RAJEEV KUMAR MITTAL, HISAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5141/DEL/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Ita No:- 5141/Del/2025 (Assessment Year- 2018) Income Tax Officer, Rajeev Kumar Mittal, Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-14, H. No. 95, Hbc, Ward No. 3, Hisar, Haryana-125001. Vs Sirsa Road, Hisar, Haryana- 125001. Pan- Aldpm6294Q Revenue Assessee

Section 147Section 254(2)Section 271A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘C’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

DCIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S KANATAL RESORTS & SPA P.LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 5579/DEL/2015[2009-2010]Status: HeardITAT Dehradun16 Jan 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalma No. 3/Ddn/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2009-10 &

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Yadav, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 254(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant

DCIT (TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA PLAY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of revenue stands dismissed, in terms of aforesaid\nappeals

ITA 5623/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
Section 194CSection 194HSection 194JSection 201Section 201(1)

Mahindra and Mahindra\nvide its order dated 19/06/2020. Non-following of the said order constitute mistake apparent\non record within the meaning of Section 254(2) of the Act. Hence, in order to maintain\njudicial consistency, we deem it fit and appropriate to modify para 15 of our order dated

RATIONAL BUSINESS CORPORATION PVT LTD,SONIPAT vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

Appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 4403/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4402 & 4403/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Rational Business Corporation Dcit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle 19(1), C.R. Building, Bahalgarh Chowk, Delhi, Sonepat Road, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Bahalgarh (73), Sonipat. Pan No.Aadcr1837J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

right in holding that such a mistake can be said to be a 'mistake apparent from the record' which can be rectified under section 254(2). [Para 40] It is also well - settled that a judicial decision acts retrospectively. According to Blackstonian theory, it is not the function

RATIONAL BUSINESS CORPORATION PVT LTD,SONIPAT vs. DCIT CIRCLE-19(1), DELHI

Appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 4402/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.4402 & 4403/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 बनाम Rational Business Corporation Dcit, Private Limited, Vs. Circle 19(1), C.R. Building, Bahalgarh Chowk, Delhi, Sonepat Road, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Bahalgarh (73), Sonipat. Pan No.Aadcr1837J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

right in holding that such a mistake can be said to be a 'mistake apparent from the record' which can be rectified under section 254(2). [Para 40] It is also well - settled that a judicial decision acts retrospectively. According to Blackstonian theory, it is not the function

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I NOIDA, NOIDA vs. M/S RUDRA BUILDWELL HOMES PVT. LTD., DELHI

Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal taken by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4119/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldy. Cit, M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. Pan-Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit, M/S Rudra Buildwell Projects Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. Pan-Aaecr9589E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

ST. THOMAS SYRO MALABAR CATHOLIC CHURCH,KOLKATA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1567/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2025AY 2023-2024
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA\nBEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM\nAND\nSHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY

Showing 1–20 of 468 · Page 1 of 24

...