← 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

Usha Janakalyan Nagar Chs Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer-30(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4695/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalusha Janakalyan Nagar Vs. Ito-30(1)(1), Chs Ltd, Kautilya Bhavan, 211, Bkc, Bandra (E), Kharodi,Marveroad, Mumbai-400051. Malad (W), Mumbai-400095. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaau1039J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Kunal Lunawat.Ar Respondent By : Ms. Rajeswari Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit (A) Passed U/Sec 154 & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Kunal Lunawat.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeswari Menon, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Income Tax Act and doctrine of merger without application of mind, and in treating the appeal as void / non- maintainable and treating mistake apparent from record NOT as a mistake apparent from record. 3. The Ld.CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru erred in disallowing ... U/s.250 first time pointed out the reason for disallowing the deduction, the reasons pointed out by him are covered under the concept of "mistake apparent from record". Hence need to be rectified U/s.154. 4. The Ld.CIT (A) heavily relied on the case of Navodaya Education Trust of which facts

M/S. Kankaria Maninagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-6(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2350/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2349 & 2350/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Kankaria Maninagar Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ Nagarik Sahakari Bank Income Tax Vs. Circle – 6(1), Ahmedabad Ltd. Bhagwan Chamber, Maninagar Char Rasta, Maninagar, Ahmedabad 380008 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaak6862D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Rahul Patel, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 27.09.2018 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. While One Appeal Is Against Order U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), The Other One Is Against The Rectification Order U/S. 154 Of The Act. These Appeals Were Heard Together And

For Respondent: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

securities was not added in the computation of income. Subsequently, an order u/s. 154 of the Act was passed on 22.11.2017 whereby the mistake apparent from record was rectified and addition of Rs.34,48,500/- was made on account of disallowance of depreciation wrongly claimed on Government securities. The assessee

M/S. Kankaria Maninagar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-6(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2349/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2349 & 2350/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Kankaria Maninagar Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ Nagarik Sahakari Bank Income Tax Vs. Circle – 6(1), Ahmedabad Ltd. Bhagwan Chamber, Maninagar Char Rasta, Maninagar, Ahmedabad 380008 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaak6862D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Rahul Patel, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 27.09.2018 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. While One Appeal Is Against Order U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), The Other One Is Against The Rectification Order U/S. 154 Of The Act. These Appeals Were Heard Together And

For Respondent: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

securities was not added in the computation of income. Subsequently, an order u/s. 154 of the Act was passed on 22.11.2017 whereby the mistake apparent from record was rectified and addition of Rs.34,48,500/- was made on account of disallowance of depreciation wrongly claimed on Government securities. The assessee