← 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

Harshika Engineering Pvt Ltd, Chandrapur vs. ITO Ward-2, Chandrapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 106/NAG/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(1)Section 154

Harshika Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 4] Learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting/dismissed the Appellant's appeal on the ground that there is no mistake apparent from record at the stage of 154. 5] Appellant craves to urge additional grounds at the time of hearing, if necessary.” 3. None appeared on behalf ... 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.” 5. After hearing the learned Departmental Representative and perusing the order

Jagannathan Baskar, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 2629/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2629/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Jagannathan Baskar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H88, New Astc Hudco, Ward -1, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Hosur Hosur 635 109. [Pan: Adqpb 9089F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B.B. Sathyamurthy, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. D. Komali Krishna, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri B.B. Sathyamurthy, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. D. Komali Krishna, IRS, CIT
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

passed order under Section 154 of the Act dated 16 June 2023 declining the rectification petition that there is no mistake apparent from record. According filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The appellant filed an appeal against the intimation under Section 143(1) read with Section ... passed order under Section 154 of the Act dated 16 June 2023 declining the rectification petition that there is no mistake apparent from record 1.7 Aggrieved by the aforesaid intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act (read with Section 154 the assessee prefers to file the appeal before

Anil Kumar Pruthi, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 691/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmananil Kumar Pruthi, Income Tax Officer, S/O Sh. Jagan Nath Ward-1, Hisar. Pruthi, Vs. 165, Sector-15A, Hisar-125001, Haryana. Pan:Aaspp4439J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 133(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

case of rectification, 8 Anil Kumar Pruthi vs. ITO legally assessee is entitled to make a claim and this is purely legal mistake apparent from record as the assessee has included this leave encashment in the return of income which was subsequently claimed as exempt by this rectification application

Indian Chronicle Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal ofthe assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1275/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Indian Chronicle Ltd. बनाम/ Ito Gujarat Samacharbhavan, Ward4(3), Ahmedabad Vs. Khanpur,Ahmedabad - 380001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci0793H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondentby: Date Of Hearing 28/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)

ld.counsel for the assessee that the non-adjudication of ground No.1 raised by the assessee treating it as general in nature is a mistake apparent on record in the order passed. The bare reading of the contents of the ground reveal that the assessee vide the said ground had raised ... pointed out to us by the Ld.DR. Therefore, treating the said ground No.1 as general in nature is, we hold, a mistake apparent from record in the order of the ITAT. Accordingly, we recall the impugned order of the ITAT for adjudicating the ground no.1 raised by the assessee

M/S Kolte-Patil Integrated Townships Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune

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

ITA 1990/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154

submitted that the option exercised by them cannot be rejected arbitrarily. It is also claimed by the appellant that it is not a mistake apparent from record to rectify the intimation. In Ground No.6, the appellant contended that TDS credit was not allowed fully by CPC while processing their return ... totally incorrect and the said issue could not rectified in the order passed u/s 154 since there was no mistake apparent from record which could be rectified in the order passed u/s 154 of the Act. 3] The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee had fulfilled

Anil Kant, Model Town vs. DCIT Special Range 12, Delhi

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

ITA 1018/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Manpreet Singh Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 68Section 69C

dismissed the appeal on the ground the addition was subject matter of assessment order 143(3) and not a matter of mistake apparent from record under section 154. 9. Aggrieved further, the assessee is before us. 10. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer ... return. The Assessing Officer did not rectify such addition with reason that rectification application u/s 154 would not partake the character of mistake apparent from records for such issue. Therefore, mistake w.r.t such addition was not rectified. Whereas all records detail, etc. was already produced by assessee during the assessment

Vipul Purshottamdas Thakkar, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 784/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin PatelFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 54B

limit on the number of times an order can be rectified u/s 154 of the Act, if the same suffers from a mistake apparent from record. Accordingly, the Ld. DR that there is no Vipul Purshottamdas Thakkar vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2012-13 - 6– infirmity in the order

Rashmi Gupta, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), G B Nagar

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

ITA 3491/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahmn & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Rashmi Gupta, Vs. Ito, Circle 5(1)(1), N G Nagar (Up) Nh-01, Felix Hospital, Sector 137, Noida G B Nagar, Up-201305 Pan :Adrpt7601G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

facts and circumstances of the case, after consideration of the submissions of the appellate and disposing of the application u/s. 154 rectifying the mistake apparent from record. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is a doctor by profession. The case

Agricom Foods Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Mumbai-2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2716/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Dr.K.R.Subhash,CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

same. Hence, the assessee has moved a rectification petition u/s 154 of the Act in AY 2017-18 for correcting above said mistake apparent from record and the same is still pending before him. He submitted that the assessee has, however, claimed depreciation on intangible assets in both the years

Agricom Foods Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2709/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Dr.K.R.Subhash,CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

same. Hence, the assessee has moved a rectification petition u/s 154 of the Act in AY 2017-18 for correcting above said mistake apparent from record and the same is still pending before him. He submitted that the assessee has, however, claimed depreciation on intangible assets in both the years

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3006/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT, DR &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(xii)

No.3344/Mum/2016 and in that order, identical issue was adjudicated. Subsequently, the assessee filed a miscellaneous application pointing out that there are mistakes apparent from record in the order passed on the issue of disallowance of expenses incurred on promotional activities u/s 36(1)(xii) of the Act. It was also ... expenditure claimed by the assessee u/s 36(1)(xii) is attributable to Government’s contribution. Accordingly, the observations made in paragraph 30 constitutes mistake apparent from record. Accordingly, we omit paragraph 30 of the order. (c) With regard to the contention of the Ld A.R that the notification issued

The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2522/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(xii)

No.3344/Mum/2016 and in that order, identical issue was adjudicated. Subsequently, the assessee filed a miscellaneous application pointing out that there are mistakes apparent from record in the order passed on the issue of disallowance of expenses incurred on promotional activities u/s 36(1)(xii) of the Act. It was also ... expenditure claimed by the assessee u/s 36(1)(xii) is attributable to Government's contribution. Accordingly, the observations made in paragraph 30 constitutes mistake apparent from record. Accordingly, we omit paragraph 30 of the order. (c) With regard to the contention of the Ld A.R that the notification issued

Hirdey Ram, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 319/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2014-15 Hirdey Ram, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), C/O L.C. Yadav & Company, Gurgaon 205, Arcadia, South City-2, Haryana - 122102 Gurgaon, Haryana – 122018 (Pan: Aarpy8597K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24

without considering the submissions of assessee and wrongly observing that it was an inadvertent mistake on the part of appellant and not mistake apparent from records and without observing the fact that all the details w.r.t. said claim were made available before the AO. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) ought ... interest paid u/s 24(b) of the Act amounting to Rs. 31,17,879/-. However, the AO held that it is not a mistake apparent from record but it is a mistake on the part of the assessee and reject the said rectification application u/s. 154 of the Act vide

Ashok Sharma, Kota vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2 - Kota, Kota

ITA 359/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2014-2015
For Appellant: Shri Priyank Kabra (C.A.) (V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)

disallowance of Material Consumed Exps. 2 Notice for rectification u/s 154 (ACIT/Cir-2/KTA/2017- 18/1133) Mr. Ajitesh Kumar Omission to make addition as a mistake apparent on record of 8 lakhs. No order passed. 3 Order u/s 147 (D. & C. No. 36/77) Mr. Shankar Lal Verma Opined that the assessee ... should be under major headings: 1.1) Formation of opinion while passing order u/s 143(3) 1.2) Opinion while issuing Notice for rectification of mistake apparent on record u/s 154 dated 21/11/2017 1.3) Opinion during issuance of notice u/s 148 and reassessment proceedings u/s 147 Submissions on the above headings

Monish Bipin Shah, Mumbai vs. Dy.Com. of Income Tax, CPC, (Jao: Circle 27(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4957/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabash Shankarassessment Year: 2016-17 Monish Bipin Shah Dy. Com. Of Income Tax, C-1002, Lodha Bellissimo, Cpc [Jao : Circle 27(2), N. M. Joshi Marg, Mumbai] Jacob Circle, Room No. 419, Mumbai- 400011. 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Flat 22, Nirmala Mahal, Vashi Railway Station, Vs. Bomenji Petit Road Breach Commercial Complex, Vashi, Candy, Navi Mumbai- 400703. Mumbai- 400036. Pan: Aglps5759F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh/Akshay PawarFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

upholding rejection of Application for Rectification U/s 154 insofar as treating the application as Fresh Claim for TDS as not being a mistake apparent from record. 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred in uploading rejection of Application for Rectification ... rejected by the CPC stating that "fresh claim for change of income is not allowable u/s 154 as the same is not a mistake apparent from record and that any such change can be made only under the provisions of Section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act vide intimation

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

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 125/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

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

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 ... authorities below. Though the learned CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to examine the facts of the case and rectify the mistake apparent from record, if any, and accordingly allow the deduction of ` 74,40,599, claimed under section 80P of the Act. Be that as it may. However

Arya Samaj Regd Gk II, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward -1(1) Exemption, New Delhi

In the result, the captioned appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3342/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Arya Samaj Regd Gk Ii, Vs Ito M Block, Road Number1, . Ward- 1 (1) Greater Kaialsh-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No.Aabta6009L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 143Section 154

light of condonation granted by the CIT(Exemption). Similarly, the mistake in putting correct figures in the ROI is in the league of mistake apparent from record in view of the audited accounts available with the AO. 4. Notwithstanding and without prejudice, the expenses claimed in the returned income also ... justice. 5. The Ld. DR for the revenue, on the other hand, pointed that the scope of rectification u/s.154 is limited to mistake apparent from record i.e. mistake manifest and do not involve any long drawn process of reasoning. The case made out by the assessee do not fall

Vinod Prasad Injeti, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, we reverse the orders of the ld

ITA 1252/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Jyothi Anumolu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234A

sale and sale deed and submitted that cost of acquisition of the property was wrongly taken earlier and now corrected therefore it is mistake apparent from record and orders of the lower authorities are sustainable. 12. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of ld. Lower ... subsequent to the original Agreement of Sale, it does not change the character of the transaction. Under section 154 of the Act only mistake apparent from record could have been rectified. Here, the ld. AO has tried to consider capital gain of constructed property and as cost of acquisition

Up Hotels Clarks Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle - 27(1), New Delhi

ITA 6331/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Malav Goswami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

case and finding of AO in her assessment order. After considering the same, it is found that it is not a mistake apparent from record as required u/s 154 of the IT Act, 1961 The AO in her order had specifically stated that addition ... that guest house rent at Rs. 1997873/- was disallowed and not claimed as expense. The appellant therefore submits the impugned addition is a mistake apparent from record liable for allowance. 5.3 Carefully considered the facts and submission. A qualification recorded in the tax audit report at serial

Kallullathil Thazhatheveetil Nasir, Mananthavady vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kalpetta

ITA 821/COCH/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.V.Swarnalatha, Sr.DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 143Section 147Section 154Section 246ASection 69

read with Circular No: 3/2017 dated 20/11/2007 only and hence have no application to the year under reference. This being a mistake apparent from record, was omitted to be considered by the assessing officer as well as the first appellate authority while passing the orders. 3. The learned first appellate ... this regard and held that the order passed under section 143 (3) read with section 147 is correct and there is no mistake apparent from record as submitted by the appellant, without even looking into the provisions of finance Act 2016, read with CBDT.F. No:370142/20/2016/TPZ and Circular No: 3/2017