← 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

Van Ooord India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1686/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Van Oord India Pvt Ltd Acit Circle 5(3)(2) 201, 2Nd Floor, Central Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Vs. Plaza, 166 Cst Road, Mumbai- 400020 Kalina, Mumbai- 400098

For Appellant: Shri. Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Kumar Sharma & Anil Sant
Section 250

appellant failed to approach the at the rate of 16.995%. The appellant failed to approach the Assessing Officer to rectify the mistake apparent from record. Assessing Officer to rectify the mistake apparent from record. Assessing Officer to rectify the mistake apparent from record. The issue raised by the appellant

Prakash Davara, Raipur vs. Assistant Coimmissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 177/RPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 177/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prakash Davara, 08, Gitanjali Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acupd0169K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: S/shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 156Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

time of issuing notice of demand u/s 156 w.r.t. order u/s 143(3) r.w order u/s 147 dt. 21.02.2014 which is mistake apparent from record and liable to be rectified u/s 154 of the IT Act. Thus order passed by Ld. Principal CIT- 2 is bad in I erroneous

Orient Craft Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Gurgaon

ITA 1097/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

erred in making rectification u/s 154 to order u/s 143(3) by making additions u/s 36(1)(va) since it is not a mistake apparent from record. Date of order of section 154 is 31.03.2021 and date of supreme Court 1097/Del/2023 order in checkmate services Private Limited ... income determined vide intimation u/s 143(1) was taken as income for making further additions u/s 143(3) assessment. Certainly that was a mistake apparent from record as the intimation u/s 139(1) stood final after withdrawal of the appeal by the assessee. Accordingly, the difference between the returned income

Harpalsinh Fatesinh Devdhara, Kosamba vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bardoli

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Harpalsinh Fatehsinh Devdhara, Vs. The Ito, Hg-7, Diamond Plaza Zin Road Ward- 1, Tarsadi, Kosamba, Dist – Surat, Bardoli Surat – 394120. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bftpd9991J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

sale and cash deposits from period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 were submitted before the Assessing Officer, in such month-wise cash sale, there was mistake apparent from record. The Ld. Counsel submitted a reconciliation of the difference and explained the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer to the tune

Wholery Infrastructure Private Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota, Rajasthan

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

ITA 525/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(9)Section 154Section 154(1)(a)Section 44A

invalid return". Hence the AO rejected the application of the assessee with following narration. ‘’In view of above, since this is not the mistake apparent from record and due to invalid return for the AY 2017-18, the application for rectification u/s 154 filed by the assessee is hereby rejected ... passed the order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 rejecting the application of the appellant and not rectifying the mistake apparent on record is perverse arbitrary and passed in utter disregard to natural justice. 2. That the order passed by the Ld. DCIT, CPC Bangalore dated

Delhi Policy Group (Reg), New Delhi vs. ITO(E), Ward 1(3), Delhi

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

ITA 191/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 28Section 34

short, there does not exist any mistake in the intimation issued by the AO u/s 143(1) of the Act, much less the mistake apparent from record. Accordingly, such alleged mistake is not self-evident and consequently, cannot be rectified u/s 154 of the Act.” 6. In this case also

Rumneek Bawa, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 3083/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usshri Rumneek Bawa Vs. Acit House No.6161, Pocket – B Circle – 10(1) Sector – 8, Vasant Kunj New Delhi New Delhi – 110070 Pan No. Aajpb 2393 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R. S. Singhavi, C.A. & Shri Rajat Garg, C.A. Revenue By Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.10.2023

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 292C

cash entry in the name of IRCTC and the assessee had not nexus with the same. Therefore, in our view there is a mistake apparent from record in Tribunal's order dated 21.02.2019 passed in ITA No. 3083/Del/2012 (AY 2009-10), hence, we recall the Tribunal's order dated

The ACIT- 4(1), Indore vs. M/S Prestige Feed Mills Ltd., Indore

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 194/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit-4(1) Prestige Feed Mills Ltd. Indore 30, Jaora Compound Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Assessee) Pan: Aabcp0412H Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.10.2023

Section 143(3)Section 154

scrutiny assessment already completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The AO has nowhere stated in the impugned order that there is a mistake apparent from record but the AO taken up reassessment proceeding in the garb of order u/s Page 2 of 6 M/s. Prestige Feed Mills Ltd. Page

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 145/CTK/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

order of the Assessing Officer that depreciation was allowed overlooking section 80VVA of the Act. Overlooking of a statutory provision is clearly a mistake apparent on record and on that basis, rectification under section 154 of the Act was clearly admissible. Impermissibility of deduction is not debatable if section 80VVA ... thus issue of notice under section 154 is within the ambit of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, and it is a mistake apparent from record. 20. It is contended that the respondent is not going to adjudicate the merits of the issue. They have intended to rectify

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 144/CTK/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

order of the Assessing Officer that depreciation was allowed overlooking section 80VVA of the Act. Overlooking of a statutory provision is clearly a mistake apparent on record and on that basis, rectification under section 154 of the Act was clearly admissible. Impermissibility of deduction is not debatable if section 80VVA ... thus issue of notice under section 154 is within the ambit of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, and it is a mistake apparent from record. 20. It is contended that the respondent is not going to adjudicate the merits of the issue. They have intended to rectify

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 143/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

order of the Assessing Officer that depreciation was allowed overlooking section 80VVA of the Act. Overlooking of a statutory provision is clearly a mistake apparent on record and on that basis, rectification under section 154 of the Act was clearly admissible. Impermissibility of deduction is not debatable if section 80VVA ... thus issue of notice under section 154 is within the ambit of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, and it is a mistake apparent from record. 20. It is contended that the respondent is not going to adjudicate the merits of the issue. They have intended to rectify

M/S. Linklaters, Mumbai vs. The DDIT (It) 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3280/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelinklaters V. Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent) Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) V. Linklaters Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 44C

decision of the Division bench. Hence, the impugned order of the 35 ITA NO. 3039/MUM/2008 (A.Y: 2005-06) Linklaters Tribunal suffers from the mistake apparent from record in not following the decision of Special bench and hence the same requires to be corrected. The issue regarding the quantum of income

DDIT (It)-4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Linklaters, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3039/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelinklaters V. Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent) Ddit (International Taxation) – 4(1) V. Linklaters Scindia House, N.M. Road C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bellard Estate, Mumbai - 400001 Indiabulls Finance Centre Tower 3 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aabfl2160M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 44C

decision of the Division bench. Hence, the impugned order of the 35 ITA NO. 3039/MUM/2008 (A.Y: 2005-06) Linklaters Tribunal suffers from the mistake apparent from record in not following the decision of Special bench and hence the same requires to be corrected. The issue regarding the quantum of income

Sunil Pagaria, Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 198/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234Section 54F

applicable. In view of these facts, I hold that the Assessing Officer has correctly rectify the Assessment order on the basis of mistake apparent from record and therefore ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal are dismissed. 4.6 The 3rd ground of appeal is regarding charging of interest

Dushkal Go Sewa Samiti, Sumerpur vs. ITO (Exemption), Jodhpur

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

ITA 9/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18
Section 11Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

prescribed time and hence the claim of exemption u/s.11 was not granted in the Intimation u/s 143(1) and therefore there is no mistake apparent from record rectifiable u/s 154 of the Act. Moreover, as on date, the competent authority has also not condoned the delay in filing the Form ... No.10B. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the AO has rightly held that there is no mistake apparent from record rectifiable u/s 154 at this stage. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal are dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 6. As the assessee did not receive

Dushkal Go Sewa Samiti, Sumerpur vs. ITO (Exemption), Jodhpur

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

ITA 5/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Oct 2023AY 2018-19
Section 11Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

prescribed time and hence the claim of exemption u/s.11 was not granted in the Intimation u/s 143(1) and therefore there is no mistake apparent from record rectifiable u/s 154 of the Act. Moreover, as on date, the competent authority has also not condoned the delay in filing the Form ... No.10B. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the AO has rightly held that there is no mistake apparent from record rectifiable u/s 154 at this stage. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal are dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 6. As the assessee did not receive

Saloni Singhal Khandelwal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 67(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 999/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri KVS Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 193(9)Section 199

surface in a rectification proceeding under Section 154 of the Act. 11.1 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. 11.2 A patent, manifest and self-evident error is one which does

Idbi Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-Ltu(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4596/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalidbi Bank Ltd. 22Nd Floor, Idbi Tower, Wtc Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400 005. Pan: Aabci8842G ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Ltu (2) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(2)Section 40

Audit Report. Hence, the computation as per rule 8D is not given in the annexure of Tax Audit Report. Since this is a mistake apparent from record, it is humbly requested to delete the observations as the assessee is suo-moto IDBI Bank Ltd. making a disallowance

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Raipur vs. Meserss Chhattisgarh Stateelectricity Board, Raipur

ITA 31/RPR/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.31/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (Through Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited) Dangania Raipur Pan : Aabcc7876Q ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri Praveen Khandelwal & PraveenFor Respondent: Dr. Simran Bhullar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

that the allowing of relief of “bad debts” of Rs. 150.03 Crores (supra) vide his appellate order dated 06.11.2009 (supra) suffered from a mistake apparent from record. Accordingly, the AO sought for withdrawal of the relief of Rs. 150.03 crores (supra) that was granted by the CIT(Appeals) while disposing ... conformity with the order of the Tribunal, dated 13.09.2013, and thus, had rendered the same as suffering from a mistake apparent from record making it amenable for rectification u/s 154 of the Act. The ld. A.R submitted that when the A.O at the time of filing of application

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

In the result grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 732/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalnational Stock Exchange Of India Limited Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aaacn1797L ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Circle-7(1)(1) R. No. 126, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Church Gate Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Sribivasu, Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250

passed ignoring the response of the assessee;  Thereafter assessee filed an application u/s. 154 of the Act also to rectify the mistake apparent from record, as per assessee proposed adjustments do not fall in the purview of section 143(1) of the act, being legal issue/debatable issue requires thorough verification