← 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

Chinmaya Educational Society, Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Uhf, Nauni, Solan vs. ITO Ward Exemptions, Solan

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 528/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 528/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Chinmaya Educational Society, Vs. The Ito, Chinmaya Vidyalaya,, Ward Exemptions, बनाम Uhf, Nauni, Solan 172230 Solan Himachal Pradesh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaatc2581J अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04 .07.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154

ground that the order passed by the Ld. AO is not sustainable as under section 154 only mistakes apparent from record could be rectified and none other than those. Reliance was placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 528-Chd-2022 Chinmaya Educational Society ... submitted that as the appeal against the assessment order is pending adjudication the order u/s 154 is not sustainable and there existed no mistake apparent from record. Again reliance in this placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Volkart Brothers reported

Anish Tandon, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 70(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2664/DEL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareekanish Tandon, Vs. Acit, Circle 70(1), M-205, Greater Kailash – Ii, Delhi. Delhi – 110 048. (Pan : Aadpt5486A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Baldev Raj, Advocate Shri Maneesh Upneja, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.07.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 28.07.2023 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That The Order Under Section 250 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Bad In Law, Wrong In Facts Against Natural Justice. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred By Not Allowing Foreign Tax Credit Despite The Fact That Tax Was Paid Overseas & Form 67 Was Filed Before The End Of The Assessment Year.”

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 90(2)

credit and Rs.5,38,401/- is on account of interest charged u/s 234A, B and C). Assessee requested the rectification of a mistake apparent from record u/s 154 of the Act, and the same was rejected vide order dated 22.08.2022. 4. Against the above order, assessee filed appeal before ... issue is not a scrutiny assessment matter. As per the provisions of section 143(1) and 154, only mistake apparent from record can be taken into consideration herein, without going into the judicial decisions etc. As per the provisions of the Act, the appellant has not filed the Form