← 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

Sh. Rakesh Kumar Singla, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 46/CHANDI/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA and Ms. Muskan Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 199Section 250(6)

action of the Learned Assessing Officer in rejecting the claim of the appellant that the mistake was outside the purview of a mistake apparent from record. 3. That the Learned CIT(A) gravely erred in not appreciating that by not giving the credit for TDS, the appellant has not been ... erred in upholding the AO’s action of rejecting the claim of the assessee that the mistake was outside the purview of a mistake apparent from record within the meaning of Section 154 of the Income Tax Act; and that the ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that

Uttam Narayanmal Mehta, Mumbai Suburban vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2950/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2950/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Uttam Narayanmal Mehta बिधम / Ito- Ward 19 (3) S K Metal, Shop No 10, Piramal Chamber, Dr. Vs. Ground Floor, 380/388, S.S. Rao Marg, Lalbaug, Majestic Mansion, Svp Parel, Mumbai-400012. Road Near Harikishandas Hospital, Opp. Central Bank Of India, Girgaon. Mumbai-400004. स्थधयी लेखध सं/.जीआइआर सं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aagpm7908K (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C T Mathews (Sr. AR)
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154

profit of proprietary concern of the appellant twice at the time of computing the total income of the appellant is not a mistake apparent from record and therefore cannot be rectified under section 154 of the Act. 2 ITA. No. 2950/Mum/2023 A.Y. 2018-19 Uttam Narayanmal Mehta . Your Appellant submits ... that the aforementioned mistake is a mistake apparent from record and the same ought to be rectified under section 154 of the Act. 2. The learned Assessing Officer erred in not allowing the appellant to change the head for deduction claimed in respect of profit from proprietary concern amounting

Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3468/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2009-10
Section 100Section 263Section 48

Thereafter, on the receipt of the assessment order, assessee filed rectification application dated 26/08/2013 and 27/08/2013 and rectified certain mistake apparent from record and in pursuance of which ld. AO has rectified the order as u/s.154 dated 16/06/2014. 10. Post the above proceedings and examination of material on record

The Jt. CIT, (OSD), Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Sheetal Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue , so far as Ground no

ITA 523/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2012-13 Jt.Cit (Osd) Sheetal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Circle-4(1)(1) V. 25, 4Th Floor Ahmedabad Shukan Mall Nr.Rajasthan Hospital Shahibaug, Ahmedabad-380054 Gujarat Pan: Aaics 9312 A अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Ramit Kocharthis Appeal Filed By Revenue Is Directed Against The Appellate Order Dated 22/01/2019 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-8, [“Cit(A)” In Short] Under Section 250 Of Sub-Section (6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Assessment Year 2012-13(Appeal No. Cit(A)-8/168/15-16), The Appellate Proceedings Have Arisen Before Ld. Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated Jt.Cit(Osd) V. Sheetal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Ay 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate and Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 40A(3)

appellate order dated 08.02.2023 in ITA No. 523/Ahd/2019 for assessment year 2012-13. Thus, it is averred that this is a mistake apparent from record, and prayers were made to rectify the aforesaid mistake apparent from Record. The Jt.CIT(OSD) v. Sheetal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. AY 2012-13 3 Tribunal ... Tribunal in the appellate order passed for AY 2012-13. Thus, it was claimed that this is a case merely of mistake apparent from record and same cannot be allowed. 6. We have heard rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. We have observed

Parameswaran Bashkar, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 845/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.845/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Parameswaran Bashkar, The Income Tax Officer, House Number 784, Voc Layout, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(1), Vgp Layout, Uthandi, Chennai. Chennai – 600 119. [Pan: Adapb-4101-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ* की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ,-थ* की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 4(6)Section 4(7)Section 54F

passed on the basis of incomplete information, my order passed on 27-06-2022, also becomes an order based on a mistake apparent from record. Thus, grounds of appeal raised by the appellant as ground of appeal Nos. 1 to 15 are dismissed. The order passed ... Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) cannot revive his order dated 09-08-2018 under section 154 of the Act which was not a mistake apparent from record. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed under section 154 of the Act. 15. We carefully considered the submissions

Town Vividoddesha Sahakari Bhandara Niyamitha, Tumkuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Tumkur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1089/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 80P

this amounts to misleading the appellate authority. Lastly the appellant says that that disallowance of 80P is a debatable issue, and not a mistake apparent from records. The said letter dated 22.07.2021 informs the appellant of the intention of the AO to rectify the assessment order in view ... before the CIT(A), etc. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A) and submitted that the there is no mistake apparent on record warranting interference u/s. 154 of the Act. It is submitted that the issue involved is highly debatable and not amenable to rectification

Lufthansa Cargo Ag, New Delhi vs. DCIT(TDS), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2711/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Sujit Ghosh AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 201(1)

case of Hindustan Coco Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). The assessee has contended that the demand raised by the CPC was a mistake apparent from record and the CPC should have rectified the same u/s 154. In a given case where a person has not deducted the TDS and claimed

M/S. Tso Jhe Khangsar Charity Hospital Society, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward-1, Mysuru

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

ITA 912/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, S
Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 154

been correctly computed. Hence, the request made the assessee for rectification for allowing exemption. It cannot be considered as there is no mistake apparent on record." 5.2 As per the A.O. not claiming exemption u/s 11 is not mistake apparent from record on the other hand the appellant admitted ... original return there is a no order before the A.O. which was required rectification u/s 154. The rectification is only to rectify the mistake apparent from record in case of any order passed as mentioned in the said section. As discussed in this case there is no order which requires

Life Care Medical Complex Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CPC, Bengaluru & NFAC, Delhi, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1074/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250(5)

return of income as seen above and hence on this count, there can be no ground to hold that there is a mistake apparent from record in the intimation issued u/s. 143(1) by CPC, which could be brought under the scope and ambit of Section ... under concessional rate of 25% are not admitted and dismissed in limine. 5.20. For the detailed reasons as stated above, there is no mistake apparent from records in the intimation issued u/s. 143(1) of the Act by CPC and therefore, the rejection of appellant’s petition u/s. 154 seeking

Maersk Global Service Centers (India ) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT Circle-15(1) (1) Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/ITO-NFAC-Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 723/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.723/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2017-18) Maersk Global Service Centres (India) Private Limited, 12Th Floor, Empire Tower, Village Elthan, Airoli, Off Thane Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai – 400 708. Pan: Aadcm-7786-M ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Dcit, Circle 15(1)(1), Addl/Jt/Dy/Acit/Ito-Nafc-Delhi, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate with Shri Manish Kanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar –CIT DR/
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

Health Private Limited, qualify the RPT Filter. The assessee filed application u/s. 154 of the Act for rectification of mistake apparent from record before the TPO. The TPO vide order dated 20/10/2022 rectified the mistake and deleted the 3 aforesaid three companies from the list of comparables. However

Jaipal Singh Dendsay, Karnal vs. ITO Ward-1, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 661/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Prem Rajpal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Siddharth Bhim Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(10)(i)Section 143(1)Section 154

gratuity amounting to Rs. 6,50,000/- u/s 10(10AA) of the Act and hence moved a rectification application to rectify the mistake apparent from record. 6. The contention of the assessee did not find any favour with the CIT(A) who was of the firm belief that the claim ... strongly supported the finding of the CIT(A) and stated that on the date of the processing of return there was no mistake apparent from record which needs rectification u/s 154 of the Act. Page 3 of 6 ITA No.-661/Del/2023 Jaipal Singh Dendsay 9. We have given

M/S. Vogue Fabrics, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Panipat

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

ITA 2890/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 32(2)

available to the assessee firm for set off as per provisions of Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This being "mistake apparent from record" as per section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 needs rectification. We request that the same may be rectified ... rectification application and the order of rejection. We are of the considered view that the claim of the assessee is definitely a mistake apparent from record rectifiable u/s 154 of the Act. All that the AO was required to do was to verify the claim from his own assessment records

Shreeji Innova, Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2843/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 143(3)Section 154

only. Accordingly the Assessing Officer took the view that the excess rent payment was omitted to be disallowed, which constituted a mistake apparent from record in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO initiated rectification proceedings under section

ACIT (E), Circle-2(1), New Delhi vs. Sports Authority of India, New Delhi

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

ITA 2454/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 2(15)

allowing their revenue expenses ignoring the fact that the present appeal is against the order u/s154 passed by AO with respect to mistake apparent from record in the order u/s 143(1) of the Act as it tantamount to the scrutiny of expenses claimed which is against the provisions

Sports Authority of India, New Delhi vs. JCIT (E), Circle-2(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2227/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. James, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 2(15)

allowing their revenue expenses ignoring the fact that the present appeal is against the order u/s154 passed by AO with respect to mistake apparent from record in the order u/s 143(1) of the Act as it tantamount to the scrutiny of expenses claimed which is against the provisions

Rishi Aggarwal, Noida vs. DCIT Central Circle, Noida

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

ITA 1643/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

warrant rectification, but only a fresh assessment proceeding can be initiated, if required. The scope of rectification proceedings are limited to correction of mistakes apparent from records only. 4. That the addition of Rs.76,75,000/- is based on the basis of seized material found during the course of search ... passing order u/s 154 of the Act, before the proceedings u/s 153C were completed and the rectification proceedings are limited to correction of mistake apparent from record only. 18. The issue raised by the assessee in Ground No. 3 is not emanating from the impugned order

Maquet Medical India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6524/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 115O(4)Section 234DSection 250Section 41(1)

Tribunal at the time of hearing of the appeal would constitute a 7 ITAs 6524 & 5789/Mum/2017 Maquet Medical India Pvt. Ltd. “mistake apparent from record” which could be rectified under Sec. 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations, the order passed by the Tribunal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Maquet Medical India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5789/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 115O(4)Section 234DSection 250Section 41(1)

Tribunal at the time of hearing of the appeal would constitute a 7 ITAs 6524 & 5789/Mum/2017 Maquet Medical India Pvt. Ltd. “mistake apparent from record” which could be rectified under Sec. 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, on the basis of our aforesaid observations, the order passed by the Tribunal

DCIT -3(4), Mum vs. M/S. Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank), Mum

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed for statistical purposes as not maintainable

ITA 3090/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-3(4), M/S Union Bank Of India (Erstwhile 29Th Floor, Centre-1, Corporation Bank) Vs. World Trade Centre, Central Accounts Dept. 6Th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Union Bank Bhavan 239, Vidhan Mumbai-400 005. Bhavan Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaacu 0564 G (Erstwhile Pan No. Aaacc7245E) Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. S Ananthan/Ms. LalithaFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in holding the issue to be a mistake 'apparent from record' & setting aside the rejection of rectification application u/s 154 by the AO, by ignoring the fact that the issue involved IS debatable ... nature and not a mistake apparent from record? M/s Union Bank of India 2 2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the 2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the 2. Whether on the facts

Shyam Sunder, Bhopal vs. The CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assesse is dismissed

ITA 161/IND/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raoshyam Sunder Trivedi Ito1(4) Opp.-1 Vashundra State Bank Bhopal Vs. Colony Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Actpt 3280G Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 254Section 254(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(via)Section 43B

Court of Gujarat in Hiralal Bhagwati's case (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal and thus there was a "mistake apparent from record" which required rectification. 40. The core issue, therefore, is whether non-consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional Court (in this case a decision