“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

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

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

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

DCIT Cir 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Biostach India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3559/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-12) Biostadt India Limited V/S. Dcit 6(1), Mumbai Poonam Chambers, A बिधम Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Wing, 6Th Floor, Dr. A. B. 400020 Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400018 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccb1830G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

taxability of excise duty refund Rs.4,96,06,000/- and (ii) deduction allowable under section 801B, on merits and, therefore there is no mistake apparent from records. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) has grossly erred in allowing

Biostadt India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 349/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 250Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs. Formula One Marketing II Limited, United Kingdom

ITA 5092/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 148Section 154Section 195Section 209Section 234ASection 234B

5092/Del/2024 Formula One Marke"ng II Limited 8.1 The provisions of Section 154 of the Act apply only when there is a "mistake apparent from record". In the instant case, there were two favourable decisions of Bombay and Delhi High Court therefore, there was no "mistake apparent from record" within

Amitkumar Pravinchandra Reshamwala, Surat vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru / ITO (Int. Tax) Surat, CPC Bengaluru / ITO Surat

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1240/SRT/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 May 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1240/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2023-24) (Hybrid Hearing) Amitkumar Pravinchandra Deputy Director Of Income-Tax, बनाम/ Reshamwala Cpc, Bengaluru/Ao (Int. Tax) Vs. B-1004, Arihant Heightsopp Surat Stuti Icon. Auravpath, Palanpur-395 005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Agspr 4047 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 90

Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Keshri Metals Pvt. Ltd. 237 ITR 165 (SC) held that there has to be a mistake apparent from record. In other words, a look at the record must show that there has been an error, and that error may be rectified. Reference ... held that a point which was not examined on fact or in law cannot be dealt as mistake apparent on record. 6.6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., 305 ITR 227 (SC) held that an error cannot be said

Brig. (Retd.) Jitendra Kumar Narang, Noida vs. ITO, Ward 11(3), Pune

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

ITA 228/PUN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp Malik (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154

computing total income. Consequently, an order u/s 154 of the Act was passed to cure the mistake. For the purpose of determination of 'Mistake apparent from record', there must be a mistake. In this case, it is clear that the A.O. has worked an amount of Rs.5 ... filed against the order u/s 154 of the Act. The scope of section 154 of the Act is limited and confined to 'mistake apparent from record. In nutshell, the addition of Rs.5,30,000/- made by the A.O. in rectification order is sustained and all the Grounds of appeal

The South Indian Bank Limited, Thrissur vs. PCIT, Thrissur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 628/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2018-19

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 Pcit, Aayakar Bhavan, North Block, ……………… Respondent New Annex Building Mananchira, Kozhikode Kerala.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh C, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

learned JAO for AY2017-18 after verification of the facts of the case). Thus it is apparent that there is a mistake apparent from records by accepting the erroneous provision for bad debt accounts without considering the findings of JAO in the previous assessment year which results in an opening

Scms Maritime Training Institute, Mumbai vs. Ward 25(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6474/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Scms Maritime Training Ward 25(1)(1) Institute Kautilya Bhavan, 5/6 Poonam Kirti, Bandra Kurla Complex, Poonam Nagar Off Mahakali Vs. Mumbai-400051. Caves Road Andheri East, 400093. Pan: Aagts8333N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri. Mehul Shah, Ca Revenue : Shri. Rajesh Meshram, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Meshram, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 154Section 80G

total income was determined at Rs.32,27,675/-. Assessee filed an application before CPC u/s. 154 of the Act, claiming for rectification of mistake apparent from record which was processed and order was passed on 24.08.2023 against which assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3.1 Assessee claims

Sis Cash Services Private Limited, Patna vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 240/PAT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 May 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Kavita Jha, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

Hiralal Bhagwati's case [246 ITR 188 (Guj)], was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal and, thus, there was a 'mistake apparent from record' which required rectification. [Para 39] The core issue, therefore, is whether non-consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional Court or of the Supreme Court

Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 286/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 32

rectification order u/s 154 dated 17.12.2018, the CPC has rejected the request of the appellant for rectification of mistake. There is no mistake apparent from record at the stage of 154 application. If, at all, the issue under consideration would arise only at the stage of intimation

Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 285/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 32

Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 284/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 32

Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 283/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 32

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed on this issue

ITA 414/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT-DR

allowed the appeal of the Department without taking into consideration the aforesaid contention of the Counsel for the assessee, which constitutes a mistake apparent from record. 2. On going through the facts of the instant case, we are hereby recalling the order of ITAT in ITA No. 414/Ahd/2020 vide order

Ajeet Kumar Rampuria, Tonk vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Tonk

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

ITA 44/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Jhanwar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 250

wherein Id. AO has addition only of Rs. 7,57,911/ For this purpose, the assessee also filed rectification application to rectify the mistake apparent from record and pass appropriate rectification order. Copy of rectification application is hereby enclosed as Annexure-"A". However the Id. AO has not considered

Empire Developers and Builders, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 730/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.730/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Empire Developers & V The Income Tax Officer, Builders, S Ward-3(1),Pune. Krishna Dham, 117+121/4B, Lane No.12, Prabhat Road, Pune – 411004. Maharashtra. Pan: Aabfe4291N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ms.Vaishnavi Badwe – Ar Revenue By Shri Ratnakar Shelake – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025 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] For A.Y.2011-12 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act On 23/01/2025 Emanating From The Order U/S.154 Dated 07/01/2019 Of The Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld. Ao Erred In Law & In Facts In Determining The Income Of The Appellant At Rs.35,01,876/-Instead Of Nil As Per The Return Of

Section 111a(2)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 801BSection 80I

assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) who dismissed the Appeal on the ground that there is no mistake apparent from record. Hence, assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal. Submission of Ld.AR : 3. Ms.Vaishnavi Badwe-CA filed a paper book. She filed copy of return ... However, disallowing a claim u/s.80IB(10) validly made by the assessee in the Return of Income without any authority of law is a mistake apparent from records. The Section 143(1) is reproduced here as under : “143. [(1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response

Trimbak Shripad Dharurkar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2633/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2633/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Trimbak Shripad Dharukar, Anand Apartments, 105 Moti Danpati, Narayan Peth, Pune 411030. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaqpd6788C Appellant/Assessee Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement V The Income Tax Officer, S Ward-4(4), Pune. Respondent / Revenue Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) 15/05/2025 16/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 19.11.2024 For

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

salary at the time of retirement claimed as exempt from the total taxable income as per section 10(10AA), is justified as a mistake apparent from record. 2. Whether the question as to the appellant being a Government employee or not is to be decided after examination of facts ... long drawn process of inquiry and would not fall within the scope of a mistake apparent from record. 3. Whether the Order u/s 154 rectifying the intimation u/s 143(1)(a) is beyond the scope of permissible adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) in view of the facts that the claim

Warden International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 8(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1754/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal / Atul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 154Section 250

that the order under Section 143(3) of the IT Act was not rectifiable as the exclusion of strategic investments was not a mistake apparent from record. Also, without prejudice, the appellant submitted that strategic investments in subsidiary companies should not be considered for the purpose of computation of average

Mulund Samata Co-Op Hsg Soc Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-41(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6432/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Ashutosh Patare, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249Section 3Section 5Section 80P(2)(d)

deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2)(d). An online rectification application was moved by the assessee on 05.12.2022, u/s. 154 to rectify this mistake apparent from record. However, it did not yield the desired result. CPC passed an intimation order denying the application for rectification on 11.01.2023. Aggrieved, assessee went

The United Club, Koratty South vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 427/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri.Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Senior AR

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

intimation order. Further, the appellant has also submitted rectification application before jurisdictional assessing officer which was also rejected stating no mistake apparent from record is there in the order which is prima facie requirement to proceeding to rectification order u/s. 154 of the Act. 8.2. In this regard, reliance

Jacob Thomas, Kozhencherry vs. ACIT, Thiruvalla Range, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 134/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jacob Thomas .......... Appellant 1, Mulamoottil, Kozhencherry 689641 [Pan: Ackpt3269L] Vs. Acit, Ward-1 & Tps, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajakannan, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)], Dated 27.12.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 06.11.2017 Declaring Income Of Rs. 18,00,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Ward -1, Thriuvalla (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 24.12.2019 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). While

For Appellant: Shri Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

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

Taxman 352. Therefore, the failure of the AO to charge interest u/s. 234D in the original assessment order, does give rise to a mistake apparent from record, which is capable of being rectified under the provisions of section 154 of the Act, therefore, the AO was justified in levying interest