← 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

Shri Rohit Agarwal, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer- 3(3), Kanpur

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

ITA 352/LKW/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rohit Agarwal V. Ito-3(3) Room No.108, 1St Floor Kanpur 49/52, General Ganj Radha Kripa, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Abapa2045C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 01 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R
Section 154Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

already adjudicated U/s 250(6) of the Act, the same cannot now be adjudicated u/s. 154 of the Act because there is no mistake apparent from record. Appellant has discretion to approach Hon'ble ITAT against the order u/s. 250(6) of the Act passed by this office. Therefore, application

Dy. CIT(Exemption), Lucknow vs. Moradabad Development Authority, Moradabad

In the result, ITA No. 1071/Del/2020, ITA No

ITA 273/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.273,199/Lkw/2019 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Moradabad Development (Exemption), Lucknow Authority, Kanth Road, Moradabad Pan:Aajfm7731M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. & Sh. Mradul Agarwal C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Mazahar Akram, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 154Section 2(15)Section 250

activities of the authority and by discussing the various decisions of the higher courts without understanding the fact that section 154 is a mistake apparent from records not it is applicable on the old provisions or change of earlier opinion. 7. Any other ground of appeal which may be raised ... activities of the authority and by discussing the various decisions of the higher courts without understanding the fact that section 154 is a mistake apparent from records not it is applicable on the old provisions or change of earlier opinion. 7. Any other ground of appeal which may be raised

Shri. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 736/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, Pr.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234A

assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and contended that 154 order dated 17.9.2020 is not sustainable because there was no mistake apparent from record in the earlier order u/s. 154 dated 20.2.2020. However, the ld. CIT(A) could not find any force in the argument

Shri. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 196/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, Pr.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234A

assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and contended that 154 order dated 17.9.2020 is not sustainable because there was no mistake apparent from record in the earlier order u/s. 154 dated 20.2.2020. However, the ld. CIT(A) could not find any force in the argument

Shri. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 105/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Ms. Lakshmi S., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, Pr.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234A

assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals) and contended that 154 order dated 17.9.2020 is not sustainable because there was no mistake apparent from record in the earlier order u/s. 154 dated 20.2.2020. However, the ld. CIT(A) could not find any force in the argument

M/S. Spl Realtors Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1637/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT-DR
Section 154Section 201Section 40

mistake apparent from the record. 2.4 The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the fact that the rectification carried out is not a mistake apparent from record. 2.5 The learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that mistake apparent from the record cannot be something which would have to be established

Surinder Singh Ryait, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1437/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assesse Is Aggrieved By The Order Bearing Number: 09/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2017-18 Dt. 29/08/2019 Passed Under Section 154 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-16 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2014 To 31/03/2015. 2. Factual Matrix 2.1 That By An Order In First Appeal Bearing Number 09/It/Cit(A)- 5/Ldh/2017-18 Dt. 21/12/2018 The Ld. Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250(6) Of The Act Had Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Penalty Order Dt. 12/05/2017 Wherein Penalty Of Rs. 12,30,000/- Was Imposed On 2 The Assessee U/S 271Aab(1)(A). The 1St Appeal Of The Assessee Was Thus

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Goel, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 250(6)Section 253Section 271ASection 274

That while allowing rectification petition of the Ld. A.O. U/s 154, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that there is no mistake apparent from record in his order dated 21.12.2018 which can be rectified U/s 154. 3. That while allowing the rectification petition

Nehal Brothers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal in respect of the five creditors stand allowed

ITA 2541/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 Nehal Brothers, Income Tax Officer-23(2)(1), Ew 4030, Piramal Chambers, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Vs. Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Bandra Kurla Complex, Lalbaugh, Lower Parel, Bandra (East), Mumbai. Mumbai Pan : Aajfm6428R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. KhandelwalFor Respondent: Ms. Monica Pande, Sr.DR
Section 68

earlier disposed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal on 25-01-2024. Subsequently, the assessee filed an M.A. pointing out certain mistakes apparent from record in the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal. It was submitted that the 2 addition made by the AOu/s ... related to 16 creditors and Tribunal did not adjudicate grounds relating to five creditors and the same has resulted in a mistake apparent from record. Accordingly, the Tribunal, vide its order dt.25-11-2024 passed in M.A. No. 106/Mum/2024,recalled the order dated 25-01-2024 passed in this appeal earlier

Luit Academic Development Society, Jorhat vs. ITO W-2(3), Exem, Guwahati

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

ITA 42/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

arisen at the stage of 143(1), the issue cannot be adjudicated upon in the present appeal and further there is no mistake apparent from record at the stage of 154. Therefore, the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 3.1. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee

Luit Academic Development Society, Jorhat vs. ITO, W-2(3), Exem, Guwahati

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

ITA 41/GTY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

arisen at the stage of 143(1), the issue cannot be adjudicated upon in the present appeal and further there is no mistake apparent from record at the stage of 154. Therefore, the grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 3.1. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee

Shikhar Chand Jain, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 555/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 555/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shikhar Chand Jain Gali No.3, Ashok Vihar Colony, Near Bansal School, Pandri, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Achpj2931Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 250(6)

body of the impugned order u/s. 250 dated 30.08.’23 which renders the order u/s. 250 dated 30.08.’23 to be-suffering from mistake apparent from records and rectifiable u/s.154, hence, the 3 Shikhar Chand Jain Vs. ITO-3(1), Raipur impugned order u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 dated ... dated 30.08.2023, resultantly, the order passed by the Learned C1T (Appeal) u/s 250 dated 30.08.2023 was vitiated by the vice of mistake apparent from record, consequently, the impugned order u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 dated 23.10.2024 is also arbitrary, illegal and unjustified and therefore, liable to be set aside

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 234B

years. That cannot countenance. As it would lead to unintended results by conferring the powers to Assessing Officer to rectify any mistake apparent from record in respect of intimation beyond a period of 4 years. In the present case, if we look into the purpose, object, text, and context

Solan Filling Station, Solan vs. ITO, Ward -1, Shimla

In the result, the addition so made and sustained by the ld CIT(A) is hereby deleted

ITA 432/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

therefore most respectfully requested that the proceedings under section 154 of the Income tax Act may please be dropped there being no mistake apparent on records and rectifiable under the Act has crept in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. 6. Further, reliance was placed ... same read as under: 4. In view of these facts, notice under section 154 was issued to the assessee proposing the rectification of mistake apparent from records. In response to the said notice, the assessee has furnished reply and stated that as per the company norms/rules/rates shrinkage is allowed

Solan Filling Station, Solan vs. ITO, Ward -1, Shimla

In the result, the addition so made and sustained by the ld CIT(A) is hereby deleted

ITA 431/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

therefore most respectfully requested that the proceedings under section 154 of the Income tax Act may please be dropped there being no mistake apparent on records and rectifiable under the Act has crept in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. 6. Further, reliance was placed ... same read as under: 4. In view of these facts, notice under section 154 was issued to the assessee proposing the rectification of mistake apparent from records. In response to the said notice, the assessee has furnished reply and stated that as per the company norms/rules/rates shrinkage is allowed

Tajpur S.K.U.S Ltd., Mahishadal, Purba Medinipur vs. Ld. DCIT, Prestige Alpha No.48/1, 48/2 Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Road

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

ITA 1981/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Sonjoy Sarma & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 154Section 234Section 250Section 80P

aside and ground nos. 2 & 3 are allowed. 6. Since an error of law is also mistake apparent from record, therefore, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') ought to have rectified the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act when the error was brought to his notice

Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 927/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Agarwal CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

pending verification on pretext of which the rectification order u/s.154 has been passed and the A.O. has not pointed out any mistake apparent from record. 8.2.6 As regards the merits of the issue in hand, the appellant had clearly stated that it had made provision for the above expenses ... provided by the 5 ITO, (EXEMPTION), WARD –JAIPUR VS RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION appellant to arrive at such conclusion of it being a mistake apparent from record. The appellant has given a ledger account for the above provision of expenses of Rs.2,30,26,345/- The appellant has also provided

Seema Jain, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1112/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1112/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Seema Jain Vs. Ito, Ward-8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Afnpj4732N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Venkateswarlu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Carrying On The Business Of Trading In Jewellery & Also Job Work For Her Customers, Filed Her Return Of Income For The A.Y.2017-18 On 12.09.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,09,720/- The Assessment Has Been Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri S.Venkateswarlu, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 40Section 69A

taxed twice. The Assessing Officer vide order u/s 154 of the Act dated 28.12.2021 rejected the petition, stating that there was no mistake apparent from record for rectification. 3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 154 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before ... that the request for rectification involves a simple arithmetic and therefore the rejection of the assessee’s plea that it is not a mistake apparent from record is unjustified. The Ld.CIT(A) further observed that when the purported sales were treated as bogus, it has to be necessarily reduced from

Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa vs. DCIT Circle -1, Nellore

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

ITA 502/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Advocate and Shri Nitin Narang,C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 144C(5)Section 92D

using Other Method, accordingly, arriving at the TP adjustment amounting to INR 5,52,48,148. 20. The TPO has made a mistake apparent from records by not taking cognizance of the directions made by the DRP for AY 2018-19, wherein the DRP has held that the payment ... outstanding receivables undertaken by the TPO and DRP - INR 13,45,644. IT(TP)A No.630/Hyd/2024 8 31. The TPO has made a mistake apparent from records by not taking cognizance of the observations made by the DRP, wherein the DRP ordered the TPO to compute the net interest liability

Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo vs. Deepak Kumar, Nahan

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 355/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM & & &, SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 154Section 68

instead of normal rate of tax. It was submitted that the AO has rightly invoked his jurisdiction u/s 154, being a mistake apparent from record and the ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the AO’s order so passed. He supported the order so passed ... addition to this 25 per cent surcharge on such tax and 3 per cent education cess of tax and surcharge. There is a mistake apparent from records and the same is required to be rectified under s. 154 of the IT Act. Further, in the above matter an opportunity

Utkarsh Nagpur Z P Prathmik Shikshak Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

dated, the deduction u/s.80P has been allowed to the appellant. In view of the above, prima facie, it appears that there is mistake apparent from record. Therefore, the AO is directed to examine the above facts & rectify the mistake apparent from record, if any and, accordingly, allow the deduction