← All Phrases

“mistake apparent from record”

Rectification & RevisionSection 154Section 154700 judgments

The decision most relied on for mistake apparent from record is Kourani v. Union OF India (83 Taxmann.com 137), cited in 1,708 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on mistake apparent from record

Kourani v. Union OF India
83 Taxmann.com 137 · 2017 · High Court
1,708
citing judgments

The fee under Section 234E for late filing of TDS/TCS statements cannot be levied retrospectively by processing an intimation under Section 200A for defaults occurring before the amendment allowing such processing.

ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.
305 ITR 227 · 2008 · Supreme Court
470
citing judgments

Non-consideration of a decision by a jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. However, non-consideration of a non-jurisdictional High Court decision does not typically amount to such a mistake.

T.S. Balaram ITO v. Volkart Bros.
82 ITR 50 · 1971 · Supreme Court
382
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd.
228 ITR 463 · 1997 · Supreme Court
262
citing judgments

A point not examined on facts or in law cannot be treated as a mistake apparent on record for rectification purposes.

DIT v. Jacabs Civil Incorporated/ Mitsubhishi Corporation
330 ITR 578 · 2011 · High Court
115
citing judgments

Interest under Section 234B is generally not leviable on non-residents whose income is subject to tax deduction at source under Section 195, provided the non-resident assessee did not induce short or non-deduction of TDS by the payer.

CIT v. Aruna Luthra
252 ITR 76 · 2001 · High Court
87
citing judgments

Rectification under Section 154 is permissible based on a subsequent judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court. Such a judgment clarifies the law as it always stood, thereby revealing a mistake apparent from the record.

Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa
133 ITR 7 · 1982 · High Court
57
citing judgments

Debatable issues cannot be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, as rectification is limited to mistakes apparent from the record.

Mepco Industries Ltd. v. CIT
319 ITR 208 · 2009 · Supreme Court
50
citing judgments

A mistake rectifiable under Section 154 must be obvious and apparent from the record, not one that requires a long process of reasoning or constitutes a mere change of opinion.

Judgments citing mistake apparent from record

ITO, Ahmedabad vs. Udayan Mandavia, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 154/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Palak Pavagadhi, AR
Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 154Section 69A

Appeals) further observed that rectification under section 154 of the Act can be carried out only in respect of a mistake apparent from record and not on issues requiring detailed examination or involving interpretation of law. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) accepted the contention of the assessee that the action

Dcm Shriram Limited, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 5560/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80ISection 92C

capital loss carried forward for the current year. Accordingly, we direct the AO to verify the facts on record and rectify the mistake apparent from record. Ground of appeal No.4 raised by the assessee is accordingly, allowed for statistical purposes. 7 Ground no 5: Transfer of Electricity from Eligible

Late Vishwas Gajmal Sonawane, Dhule vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dhule

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

ITA 194/PUN/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.194/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Late Vishwas Gajmal Sonawane, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through Legal Heir Milind Ward-1, Dhule Vishwas Gajmal, Plot No.40, Vishwasindhu Sneh Nagar, Station Road, Opp. Khandal Vipra Bhavan, Dhule – 424 001, Maharashtra Pan : Ablps6973N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 139Section 143Section 148Section 154Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

order dated 18.01.2022 rejected the Rectification application holding that “as the issue for which the assessee has filed rectification application is not a mistake apparent from record, hence the same is not covered under the provisions of section 154 of the I.T. Act, 1961”. 4. Dissatisfied assessee preferred appeal before

Jayakishan Youth Club, Jankiagarh vs. ITO Exemption, Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 451/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Jayakishan Youth Club Ito, Exemption, Bhubaneswar Vs P.O-Gadasahi, Via-Kanas, Dist_ Puri, Odisha-752017. (Pan: Aaaaj2434L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. R. Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154

exemption has been denied. This clearly shows that the issue is highly debatable and the same cannot be treated as mistake apparent from record which can be rectified by an order u/s 154 of the Act. Another aspect is that if the claim of exemption

Tehmina K Katrak Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Mumbai

ITA 549/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
Section 11Section 119Section 139Section 154Section 92E

ought to have held that the rectification u/s 154 denying the trust exemption itself was without jurisdiction, and not a 'mistake apparent from record'. 6. Your Appellant prays that the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, (DCIT) be directed to grant the exemption under Section 11 of The Income ... Assessing Officer cannot be permitted to review the earlier decision in the guise of correcting a mistake apparent on record under Section 154 of the Act. We have already noted hereinabove that the Assessee was not put to notice in terms of Section 154(3) of the Act before passing

Rai Sahab Bhaiyalal Dubey Educational and Medical Charitable Trust, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Jabalpur

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

ITA 186/JAB/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11ASection 12ASection 143(1)

appeal before ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee by first holding that there was no mistake apparent from record and further held that there is lot of difference between the claim of exemption u/s.10(23C) and Section 11 of the Act. However

Suresh Natvarlal Zinzuwadia, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 314/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kmble

For Appellant: Ms Rangoli Gada, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 112ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

acquisition adopted by appellant was fully supported by broker statement and not disputed in remand report. 4. The issue is a clear mistake apparent from record, rectifiable u/s 154, and addition deserves deletion. 5. The appellant prays for deletion of impugned addition and acceptance of LTCG as declared in return

Shri Dandi Sewa Ashram, Onkareshwar vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption, Bhopal

ITA 560/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 10Section 10(24)Section 11Section 124Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253

Therefore, the return of income was correctly processed by the CPC determining total income at Rs.9,25,762/-, Hence, there is no mistake apparent from records i.e. Computation of income as well as computation of tax. In view of the above facts, the application u/s 154 of the Income

Anupama Infotech Provate Limited, Mayurbhanj vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Baripada

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

ITA 542/CTK/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Feb 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

made to the returned income. It was stated before us that the same was rejected for being not a mistake apparent from record and our attention was drawn to page 24 of the paper book filed being the profit and loss account for FY 2023-24. The CPC issued

Divya Dinesh, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2195/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80G

under the Act. It was further observed that the issue involved was debatable in nature and therefore could not be treated as a mistake apparent from record for the purpose of rectification under section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the action of CPC in not allowing the intra-head adjustment

Divya Dinesh, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2194/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80G

under the Act. It was further observed that the issue involved was debatable in nature and therefore could not be treated as a mistake apparent from record for the purpose of rectification under section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the action of CPC in not allowing the intra-head adjustment

Measage.Osaka Alloys and Steel (P) Ltd, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-II, Jalandhar

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 347/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Shri Udayan Dasgupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.347/Asr/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Osaka Alloys & Steel (P) Ltd. Dcit Circle - Ii बनाम/ 428, Mota Singh Nagar, Jalandhar Jalandhar Punjab - 144001 C/O Bhagat & Co. (Ca) Vs. 16 Brij Nagar, Jalandhar, Punjab - 144001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-7097-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (" थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Adjournment Request " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Farhat Khan (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 : आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Adjournment requestFor Respondent: Sh. Farhat Khan (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 264Section 80I

amount was capital receipt and not chargeable to tax. The assessee omitted to exclude the same from taxable income. The said mistake being mistake apparent from record was sought to be rectified u/s 154. However, the same stood rejected by Ld. AO vide order dated 28-02-2018 which

Balaji Educational Welfare Society, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer, CPC, Lucknow

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

ITA 712/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Balaji Educational Welfare V. Assessing Officer, Cpc Society Lucknow-226001. Balaji Public School Near Railway Station Nawabganj, Barabanki-225001. Pan:Aacab8487H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sharad Srivastava, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Srivastava, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

evidences regarding existence of registration u/s. 12A and uploading of audit report u/s. 12A was available with the Revenue, there was necessarily a mistake apparent from record which the CPC should have rectified or in the alternative the ld. CIT(A) should have allowed the claim by the assessee. Therefore ... assessee exceeded Rs.1.00 crore therefore CPC had rightly rejected the claim u/s.10(23C) of the Act and since there was no mistake apparent from record, CPC has rightly rejected the same and ld. CIT(A) has rightly rejected the same as there was no mistake apparent from record

Gayatri Shiksha Nyas, Agra vs. ITO (Exemption), Agra

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 520/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 154

filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act which was rejected by the CPC with the observations that it is not a mistake apparent from record. 6. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals) on 05.12.2024. The appeal filed by the assessee ... exemption the claimed u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act or section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. Therefore, it is not a mistake apparent from record and not convinced with the submission, he rejected the condonation of delay application filed by the assessee, accordingly, he dismissed the appeal

Gayatri Shiksha Nyas, Agra vs. ITO(Exemption), Agra

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 513/AGR/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(1)Section 154

filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act which was rejected by the CPC with the observations that it is not a mistake apparent from record. 6. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals) on 05.12.2024. The appeal filed by the assessee ... exemption the claimed u/s 11(1)(d) of the Act or section 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. Therefore, it is not a mistake apparent from record and not convinced with the submission, he rejected the condonation of delay application filed by the assessee, accordingly, he dismissed the appeal

Pradeep Sharma, Sagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Katni

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 68

beyond the scope of Section 154 of I.T. Act. An order u/s 154 of I.T. Act can be passed only for satisfaction of mistakes apparent from record, and not for debatable and disputable issues on which different views are possible whether this is a fit case for applying Section 115BBE ... that the same is taxable @ 30% as per provisions of section 115BBE r/w section 69 of the Act and is thus a mistake apparent from record rectifiable u/s 154 of the Act. 9. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to the provision

Power Security Corp. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-5(2), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2943/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2943/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, C.A ()For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 154Section 250

binding precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)), constitutes a "mistake apparent from record," as held in ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC). Thus, the rejection of the section 154 application ... therefore the assessment is bad in law. The A.O rejected the petition holding that the assessee raised is not a mistake apparent on record and is outside the purview of section 154. The assessee preferred further appeal before the CIT(A) against the order of rejection

Neysa Jewllery Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5934/MUM/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing)

Section 10ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

action of assessee in claiming deduction was a bona fide error and subsequent suo moto withdrawal was a genuine attempt to correct a mistake apparent from record. The claim under section 10A was made erroneously. Mere addition in the quantum proceeding would not by itself justify the imposition of penalty

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)

legal position has changed due to change in judgmental law subsequent to passing of assessment 3 order, it would not constitute mistake apparent on record. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) DCIT vs. ANI Integrated Services Ltd., (162 taxmann.com 889); (ii) Heylands Exports ... 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 the original order was passed by the Tribunal on 22.06.2022, the Tribunal followed

Uday Uttamrao Nevase, Pune vs. The Assessing Officer / Assessment Unit, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2606/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2606/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Uday Uttamrao Nevase, V The Assessing Officer / Saugandh Niwas, Hind Colony S Assessment Unit, Pune. Lane No.1 A, Bhekrai Nagar, Phursungi, Pune – 412308. Pan: Akqpn1150Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ca Rohan Gupta Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari – Addl.Cit(Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2022-23 Dated 04.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section 270A, Dated 17.09.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Ground 1 Section 270Aa Immunity Cit A Erred In Law By Confirming The Penalty Of Rs 629382 Under Section 270A Without Considering And

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

made at the time of filing the respective ITRs. In the following days, he received the refund amount and the notice of assessment. Mistake apparent from record before notice of assessment the assessee was unable to file rectification u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act. The reply of the assessee