← 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

Kanta, Bhiwani vs. ITO Ward-1, Bhiwani

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2213/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2010-11 Smt. Kanta Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Kanta Brick Kiln Co., Ward-1, Vpo Kayla Bhiwani, Bhiwani Haryana – 127021 (Pan: Ceppk1186J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 68

confirming the order under section 154 of the Act, ignoring the fact that the issue in question is not a mistake apparent from record, hence, not rectifiable under section 154 of the Act. (ii) That the Assessing Officer has attempted to review his own order passed under section ... That an issue which can be resolved through a long drawn process cannot be said to be a mistake apparent from record. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition

Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, Ahmedabad vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 315/AHD/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2005-06 Vs. Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv, The Income-Tax Officer, A-9, Kumud Apartment, Ward-5(2)(2), Near Stadium Five Roads, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Aaaab 3885 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.06.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06. 2. Grounds Raised Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A)-Nfac Erred On Facts & In Law In Deciding Appeal Ex- Parte Without Appreciating That Business Of The Appellant Has Been Closed Since Covid-19 & Therefore, In Absence Of Any Office, Notice(S) Claimed To Be Have Been Served Through Email Could Not Be Communicated To The Partners Of The Appellant. Without Prejudice To This It Is Submitted That No Notice(S) Came To Be Served On The Appellant At The Designated Email Stated In Form No. 35 For The Purpose Of Service Of Notice(S). Backbone Tarmet Ng Jv Vs. Ito Ay : 2005-06 2

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 250(6)Section 40

With respect to the proposition that subsequent interpretation of law by Courts would constitute a mistake apparent from record and recitificatory action u/s 154 of the Act would be in order. Our attention was drawn to CBDT Notification No.68[F.No.245/17/71- A&PAC] dated 17.11.1971 which reads as under ... Mistakes apparent from records – Whether can be treated as such on the basis of subsequent decision of Supreme Court 1. The Board are advised that a mistake arising as a result of a subsequent interpretation of law by the Supreme Court would constitute “a mistake apparent from the records

Rajasthan Medical Relief Society, Administrative Block vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Cr Building

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 740/JPR/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Apr 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sogani (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154

denied the exemption in the intimation. In the absence of the audit report in Form 10B, it cannot be said that there was mistake apparent from record in the intimation dated 17.10.2019 as the Form 4 Rajasthan Medical Relief Society vs. ITO(E) 10B was uploaded much later ... Since there was no mistake apparent from record, the rectification request made by the appellant was correctly denied by the CPC. For the same reason, the appeal filed against the passing of order u/s 154 is non maintainable. 5.2 It is noted that in this case, Form 10B was filed

Shree Jay Limbach Co.Op. Credit Society Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 573/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri H.V. Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 28Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

Assessing Officer. That the assessee had also earned interest income from credit facilities provided to members and, therefore, there was a clear mistake apparent from record which needed to be entertained. In this regard, he placed copies of financial statements of the assessee for all the impugned years pointing ... from its activity of providing credit facilities to members. That on facts, therefore, the intimation made u/s 143(1) of the Act contained mistake apparent from record which needed rectification. That the Assessing Officer had given the assessee no opportunity of hearing at all, and even

Shree Jay Limbach Co.Op. Credit Society Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 572/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri H.V. Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 28Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

Assessing Officer. That the assessee had also earned interest income from credit facilities provided to members and, therefore, there was a clear mistake apparent from record which needed to be entertained. In this regard, he placed copies of financial statements of the assessee for all the impugned years pointing ... from its activity of providing credit facilities to members. That on facts, therefore, the intimation made u/s 143(1) of the Act contained mistake apparent from record which needed rectification. That the Assessing Officer had given the assessee no opportunity of hearing at all, and even

Shree Jay Limbach Co.Op. Credit Society Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 571/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri H.V. Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 28Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

Assessing Officer. That the assessee had also earned interest income from credit facilities provided to members and, therefore, there was a clear mistake apparent from record which needed to be entertained. In this regard, he placed copies of financial statements of the assessee for all the impugned years pointing ... from its activity of providing credit facilities to members. That on facts, therefore, the intimation made u/s 143(1) of the Act contained mistake apparent from record which needed rectification. That the Assessing Officer had given the assessee no opportunity of hearing at all, and even

Shree Jay Limbach Co.Op. Credit Society Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 570/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri H.V. Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 28Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

Assessing Officer. That the assessee had also earned interest income from credit facilities provided to members and, therefore, there was a clear mistake apparent from record which needed to be entertained. In this regard, he placed copies of financial statements of the assessee for all the impugned years pointing ... from its activity of providing credit facilities to members. That on facts, therefore, the intimation made u/s 143(1) of the Act contained mistake apparent from record which needed rectification. That the Assessing Officer had given the assessee no opportunity of hearing at all, and even

The Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd., Kollam vs. The Dict, Kollam

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 96/COCH/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasthe Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Sankaramangalam Circle - 1, Kollam Chavara, Kollam 691001 Vs. [Pan:Aaact8118R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 154Section 244A

that the liability under reference did not crystallize in the year of claim, could not have possibly claimed non-deduction as a mistake apparent from record; it having in fact not made any claim for that year. Why, even as observed by the Bench during hearing, the assessee’s rectification

Mahesh Ram Vittal, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-5(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1078/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Chaugule, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 251

facts and circumstances of the case, the learned has erred in issuing order under 154 even when there was no mistake apparent from record in the assessment order issued under section 143(3) of the Act. Consequently, the order under section 154 deserves to be quashed and set aside ... foreign tax credit. Hence, the income does not amount to double taxation on the same income. In view of the above, it is mistake apparent from record within the meaning of sec. 154 of the Act and it should be rectified. Page 5 of 10 4. Accordingly, the assessee

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3695/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3695/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) National Stock Exchange Of बिधम/ Dcit-Circle-7(1)(1) India Room No.126, 1St Floor, Vs. Exchange Plaza, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra Road, Churchgate, East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn1797L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shailesh S. Shah Shri Vijay Bhatt Revenue By: Shri S. Srinivasu (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 17.08.2023 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Passed U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Wherein He Increased The Book Profit U/S 115Jb Of The Act By Making An Adjustment Of Rs.7,61,52,00,000/- [Statutory Contribution Towards Core Settlement Guarantee Fund (Core Sgf)] By Holding That Such A Contribution To Core Sgf Is To Meet An Unascertained Liability.

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 37(1)

original assessment had omitted to add the same in the book profit which omission (in the original assessment) is a mistake apparent from record. Therefore, exercising his power u/s 154 of the 3 A.Y. 2016-17 National Stock Exchange of India Act, he issued notice on 15.01.2019 and after taking ... assessee is before us. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. According to the Ld. AR, there was no mistake apparent on record for AO to invoke jurisdiction u/s 154 of the Act. Therefore, the action of the AO for making an adjustment u/s 115JB

T P Ostwal & Associates LLP, Mumbai vs. ACIT-16(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, addition of INR 67,58,815/- made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. Accordingly, Ground No. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 are allowed while Ground No

ITA 3746/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Atul T. SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 40

manner of quantifying such remuneration. 7. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that in any event, there was no mistake apparent from record so as to justify passing of an order under section 2 154 of the act.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that

Uma Maheshwar Rao Vendavelli, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5 (3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 34/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri.Monish Sawkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Subramanian.S, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

filed within the due date prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act. Further, the CIT(A) held that there is no mistake apparent from record in the order passed by the CPC u/s.154 of the Act, warranting interference by him. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee

Mr. Shashi Bhartia, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 230/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) noted that there is a delay of 2 years 5 months for filing the appeal which was to be filed by 23.01.2020, however it was filed on 14.6.2022. No sufficient reason was explained by the assessee for the inordinate delay in filing the

For Appellant: Smt. Ishita Bhaumik, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 139Section 147

appellant with the help of his son submitted his reply online explaining the facts of the case and tried to clarify the mistake apparent from record. The ld. AR submitted that the bank had wrongly reported the transactions in the portal. However, later on the bank realized the mistake

DCIT, Central Circle 30, New Delhi vs. Prakash Industries Ltd, Hissar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1929/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd. Central Circle 30 15 Km Stone Delhi Road, New Delhi Hisar, Haryana – 125044 Pan No.Aabcp6765H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. P N Barnwal, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Ms. Ayushi Gupta, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 29/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/03/2024 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi Dated 21.04.2023 Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Grievance Of The Revenue Read As Under :-

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153ASection 154Section 234Section 234B

vide order dated 24.03.2021 quashed the said assessment order for want of jurisdiction. 9. The impugned order of rectification is for rectifying the mistake apparent from record which has been held to be nonest. 10. In our considered opinion the AO cannot assume jurisdiction to temper with the order which

ACIT Circle-2(1), Ghaziabad vs. Zila Sahikari Bank Limited, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal and cross objection both are dismissed

ITA 3/DEL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandraita No:- 3/Del/2021 (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohre, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

acknowledged in his order and has advised as per Para 6.1.6 to take remedial action on the issue which was a prima facie mistake apparent from record. 2. The CIT(A)-1, Noida has erred in law and on facts in quashing the assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/147

Mayank Bansal, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 46(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1016/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 80G

that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO of passing rectification order when there was no mistake apparent from record. ii. For that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in making addition

Pramod Tarade, Raigad vs. CIT ( NFAC ), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 898/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.898/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Pramod Tarade, The Commissioner Of A-2, Sai Ameya Chs, Plot V Income Tax,[Nfac]. No.28, Sector-12, Kharghar, S Panvel, Raigad – 410210. Maharashtra. Pan: Aevpt9870L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Tarun G – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2024 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], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2021-22 Passed On 24.06.2023 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.12.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. The Order Of The Cit(A) Nfac, Dt. 24-06-2023 For The A.Y. 2021 -22 Is Contrary To Law & Facts & In The Circumstances Of Pramod Tarade [A]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

found to be strictly n accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules as noted above. As there was no mistake apparent from records in the intimation issued u/s. 143(1), appellant’s 4 Pramod Tarade [A] rectification request filed u/s. 154 seeking granting of FTC was also rejected ... subsequently filed against which petition u/s 154 was filed.” Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 5. The ld.DR submitted that there was no mistake apparent from record in the order under section 143(1) of the Act. Hence, 6 Pramod Tarade [A] ld.CIT(A) has rightly upheld the order under section

Fashion Design Council of India, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle (Exemp) 1(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine as infructuous

ITA 2786/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediafashion Design Council Of Vs. Acit India Circle (Exemp) 1(1) 209, Near Modi Flour Mill, New Delhi Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-3, New Delhi-110 020

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 37(1)Section 44A

appeal in pursuance of rectification proceedings under section 154 of the Act. 9.1 Section 154 of the Act provides for rectification of any mistake apparent from record. Hence, the scope and ambit of Section 154 is quite narrow. 9.2 A Patent, manifest and self-evident error is one which does

Maharashtra Feeds P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1254/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 154Section 208Section 234ASection 234CSection 243CSection 245CSection 245DSection 245D(1)Section 245D(4)

reasoning on the points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record. It has also been held in CIT vs. Hero Cycle Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 228 ITR 163 (SC) that rectification u/s 154 can only ... held that the mistake should not involved statutory interpretation. Keeping in view above facts and discussion it is held that there is no mistake apparent from record in the order passed by the AO u/s 154 of the Act and therefore, no merit is found in the grounds of appeal

Maharashtra Feeds P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1253/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR
Section 153ASection 154Section 208Section 234ASection 234CSection 243CSection 245CSection 245DSection 245D(1)Section 245D(4)

reasoning on the points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record. It has also been held in CIT vs. Hero Cycle Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 228 ITR 163 (SC) that rectification u/s 154 can only ... held that the mistake should not involved statutory interpretation. Keeping in view above facts and discussion it is held that there is no mistake apparent from record in the order passed by the AO u/s 154 of the Act and therefore, no merit is found in the grounds of appeal