← All Phrases

“Section 154(7)”

Section References (mined)Section 154Section 154(7)42 judgments

MAHESWARI PANCHAYAT BALOD,BALOD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 140/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.137, 138, 139 & 140/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Rajnandgaon, Balod, Chhattisgarh-491 226 Pan: Aaaam7320E

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 154(7)

case is concerned, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of rectification in terms with Section 154(7) of the Act. That on perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, it is evident that there is delay of 9 years ... assessee for pressing such rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. That as per Section 154(7) of the Act, no amendment shall be made after expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. In this case, there

MAHESWARI PANCHAYAT BALOD, BALOD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 139/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.137, 138, 139 & 140/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Rajnandgaon, Balod, Chhattisgarh-491 226 Pan: Aaaam7320E

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 154(7)

case is concerned, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of rectification in terms with Section 154(7) of the Act. That on perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, it is evident that there is delay of 9 years ... assessee for pressing such rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. That as per Section 154(7) of the Act, no amendment shall be made after expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. In this case, there

MAHESWARI PANCHAYAT BALOD, BALOD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 138/RPR/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.137, 138, 139 & 140/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Rajnandgaon, Balod, Chhattisgarh-491 226 Pan: Aaaam7320E

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 154(7)

case is concerned, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of rectification in terms with Section 154(7) of the Act. That on perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, it is evident that there is delay of 9 years ... assessee for pressing such rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. That as per Section 154(7) of the Act, no amendment shall be made after expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. In this case, there

MAHESWARI PANCHAYAT BALOD,BALOD vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 137/RPR/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.137, 138, 139 & 140/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Rajnandgaon, Balod, Chhattisgarh-491 226 Pan: Aaaam7320E

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 154(7)

case is concerned, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of rectification in terms with Section 154(7) of the Act. That on perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, it is evident that there is delay of 9 years ... assessee for pressing such rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. That as per Section 154(7) of the Act, no amendment shall be made after expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. In this case, there

THUSE ELEKTRONICS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, ITA No.2544/PUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2544/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2544 & 1890/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Thuse Elektronics Pvt. Ltd., V Dcit, Circle-7, Plot No.33A, Sector -7, S Pune. Pcntda, Bhosari, Pune – 411003, Maharashtra. Pan: Aaact6285F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 & A.Y.2013-14 Dated 23.09.2025 & 09.06.2025 Respectively Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, Dated 24.03.2013 & 26.09.2014

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 250

disputed this fact. Income tax Department has Neither rejected the Rectification Application u/s.154 of the Act NOR allowed the Rectification application. Section 154(7) has specified the time limit to pass the order u/s.154. The Section is reproduced here as under : 154 (7) Save as otherwise provided in section

THUSE ELEKTRONICS PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

In the result, ITA No.2544/PUN/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1890/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2544 & 1890/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Thuse Elektronics Pvt. Ltd., V Dcit, Circle-7, Plot No.33A, Sector -7, S Pune. Pcntda, Bhosari, Pune – 411003, Maharashtra. Pan: Aaact6285F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit Date Of Hearing 08/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 & A.Y.2013-14 Dated 23.09.2025 & 09.06.2025 Respectively Emanating From The Separate Assessment Orders Passed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, Dated 24.03.2013 & 26.09.2014

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 250

disputed this fact. Income tax Department has Neither rejected the Rectification Application u/s.154 of the Act NOR allowed the Rectification application. Section 154(7) has specified the time limit to pass the order u/s.154. The Section is reproduced here as under : 154 (7) Save as otherwise provided in section

PRABHNOOR SINGH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 904/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 904/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Prabhnoor Singh, Vs The Ito, B-408, Meda Heights, Ward 6(1), Bellandur, Doddakannelli Road, Chandigarh. Near Aet Circle, Bangalore. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Dcjps5821M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Preeti Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR
Section 128Section 128(9)

taken into account that the rectification application was also filed well within the permissible time limit i.e., upto 31st March, 2025 as per Section 154(7) of the Act. 11. As far as the issue of FTC is concerned, learned AR placed reliance on the decision in the case

KSHIPRA ENTERPROISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(2)(6), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4717/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 154(3)Section 154(7)Section 250Section 40

total amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of 4 years income of appellant at Rs. 15.95.826/-. As per section 154(7) no from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. The order was passed ... rectified after a period of 4 years, impugned order passed under section 154 dated 29-3-2014 was barred by limitation as per section 154(7)." 2. Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd v. Union of India, [2013] 31 taxmann.com 213 (Delhi), whereby the Hon'ble High Court of 5 Kshipra Enterprises

SHIV PRAKASH MOHPAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1124/JPR/2025[AY 14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalshiv Prakash Mohpal, M-132, Ashiana Utsav, Near Ram Kutiya Manchwa, Jaipur 303 706 Pan No.: Adxpm 1645D ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Brijesh Gupta, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 250Section 90

Mohpal whether by way of rectification or otherwise, irrespective of the fact that the period of limitation of four years as provided under section 154(7) of the Act has elapsed. 3. In view of the above the following has been decided: (a) In the category of cases where based

M/S. CHENNAI BUSINESS TOWER PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1570/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570/Chny/2025, धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 M/S. Chennai Business Tower Pcit-4, Private Limited (Formerly Known Vs Chennai. As Rmz Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. . Ltd), 110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Porur, Porur S.O. Kanchipuram – 600 116. [Pan:Aaacd-2287-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्यायिर्क

SUBHASH CHAND,KARNAL vs. ITO WARD - 4, KARNAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 655/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 154(7)Section 80

remanded the matter to the ITAT by observing that as the proceedings under Section 154 were beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 154(7) of the Act, the said notice was invalid and therefore, the re-opening proceedings under Section 147/148 would be maintainable. The review application preferred ... observing and holding that the notice under Section 154 was invalid as the same was beyond the period of limitation as prescribed/provided under Section 154(7) of the Act. It is required to be noted that the proceedings under Section 154 of the Act were not the subject-matter before

M/S. RMZ INFINITY (CHENNAI) PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S.Rmz Infinity(Chennai) Pvt. Ltd, The Principal Commissioner Of No.110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Income Tax-4, Porur, Porur S.O, Circle-1, Ltu, Kanchipuram Dist, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 116. [Pan: Aaacd2287R]

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 263

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिर्क

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK,THRISSUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 284/COCH/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Dcit, Circle – 1(1) & Tps ……………… Respondent Thrissur, Kerala

For Appellant: Shri Naresh C, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

application filed by the assessee, may amend any order passed by it under the Act. Further, as per the provisions of section 154(7) of the Act, no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which ... aside the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble High Court and restored the decision of the Tribunal, observing that the word “order” in section 154(7) of the Act is not qualified in any way and it does not necessarily mean the original order. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

ADITYA CEMENT,BEHROR vs. ITO, BEHROR

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

ITA 1491/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68Section 72(1)

making the amendment; or (b)refusing to allow the claim ] From the above it is crystal clear that as per section 154(7) no order can be rectified after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended ... No.2, as regards the rectification order getting time-barred, we are afraid that it is not so. It is true that as per section 154(7) no order can be rectified after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought

SREE VENKATESHWARA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, TUMKUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2339/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Aprameya K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154(7)Section 249Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

came to know that the rectification order cannot be passed as the same is time barred as per the provisions of section 154(7) of the Act. . Page 3 of 8 6. However, the learned CIT(A) dismissed delay condonation application and consequently dismissed the appeal of the assessee

MOMIN MEDICAL CHARITABLE TRUST,PATAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,EXEMPTION, PALANPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1038/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 154Section 154(7)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH BEFORE: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

KAVITA SRICHAND BAJAJ ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4684/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2025AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Shekhar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 250

15/02/2024, the Assessing Officer (“AO\") rejected the\nrectification application on the basis that the same is time-barred as per the\nprovisions of section 154(7) of the Act. In further appeal, the learned CIT(A)\ndismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee is\nin appeal

M/S. VIMONI INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6978/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarm/S. Vimoni India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 17 (1), 3-D, Vandana Building, New Delhi. 11, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aaacv3859K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Ms. Ragini Handa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Anirudh Saran Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2024 Date Of Order : 22.01.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anirudh Saran Singh, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 154Section 154(7)Section 43(8)

observing and holding that the notice under Section 154 was invalid as the same was beyond the period of limitation as prescribed/provided under Section 154(7) of the Act. It is required to be noted that the proceedings under Section 154 of the Act were not the subject-matter before ... notice under Section 154 of the Act was withdrawn on the ground that the same was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 154(7) of the Act. In the absence of any specific order of withdrawal of the proceedings under Section 154 of the Act, the proceedings initiated

FLEMINGO LINERS PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WQARD-15(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6176/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: \nShri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: \nMs. Nidhi Agarwal (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 234B

record, it\nis seen that the assessment u/s.143(3) for A.Y. 2012-13 was completed on\n25.02.2015. As per provisions of section 154(7) of the Act, no\namendment u/s.154 of the Act can be made after the expiry of four\nyears from the end of the financial year ... orders passed by the\nauthorities below. For better appreciation of the law, it would be\nrelevant to reproduce the provisions of Section 154(7) in the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 which read below:\n“(7)Save as otherwise provided in section 155 or sub-section (4) of section\n186

NARESH JERAMDAS IDNANI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, INT TAX WARD-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1.1. to 1.3. raised by the Appellant are allowed while all the grounds raised by the Appellant are dismissed as having being rendered infructuous

ITA 3787/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarang Mehta / Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 234D

dated 25/07/2023 has been passed after expiry of a period of 4 years and it is time barred. 1.2 As per provision of Section 154(7), the rectification order is to be passed within 4 years from the expiry of financial year in which the order to be amended ... years have lapsed since the passing of the assessment order, no rectification order could be passed in view of the provisions contained in Section 154(7) of the Act. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal holding that no time limit was prescribed under the provisions

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3