← 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

Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 700/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, V.P. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella V.P.Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 154

return u/s 139(1) of the Act on 29.11.2013, i.e., Rs.8,23,30,160 without discussing anything in his order, which is a mistake apparent from record, which could be rectified, but the A.O. rejected the claim of the assessee. The learned AR further submitted that ... Therefore, not 21 ITA Nos.698-700/Bang/2022. M/s.Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited. granting credit as per MAT provisions by the revenue authorities is a mistake apparent from record. 9. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the lower authorities were

Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 699/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, V.P. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella V.P.Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 154

return u/s 139(1) of the Act on 29.11.2013, i.e., Rs.8,23,30,160 without discussing anything in his order, which is a mistake apparent from record, which could be rectified, but the A.O. rejected the claim of the assessee. The learned AR further submitted that ... Therefore, not 21 ITA Nos.698-700/Bang/2022. M/s.Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited. granting credit as per MAT provisions by the revenue authorities is a mistake apparent from record. 9. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the lower authorities were

Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 698/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, V.P. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella V.P.Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 154

return u/s 139(1) of the Act on 29.11.2013, i.e., Rs.8,23,30,160 without discussing anything in his order, which is a mistake apparent from record, which could be rectified, but the A.O. rejected the claim of the assessee. The learned AR further submitted that ... Therefore, not 21 ITA Nos.698-700/Bang/2022. M/s.Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited. granting credit as per MAT provisions by the revenue authorities is a mistake apparent from record. 9. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the lower authorities were

DCIT- CC- 2(1), Mumbai vs. Mirah Dekor Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 623/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 234ASection 234B

relevant to Assessment year 2013-2014 and therefore during the course of personal hearing you were kind enough to agree to rectify such mistake apparent from record. 3. However you have also brought to our notice that there were such purchases from M/s.Servesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. During the year relevant ... Sales Rs.7,54,32,365/- A.O. Para 3.1 Page-2 CIT(A) Para- 11 Page-25 to 27 A) No mistake much less mistake apparent from record to make addition at Rs.7,54,32,365/-. Reliance on: i) 82 ITR 50 (SC) T.S. Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers

M/S. Birla Edutech Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(18)Section 3Section 79

justified and grossly erred in disallowing the loss by invoking provisions of section 79 of the Act being debatable issue as mistake apparent from record and passing the order u/s 154 of the Act. 4. Without prejudice to above: Ld. CIT(A) and AO was not justified and grossly erred ... jurisdiction of AO to have invoked the impugned action u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter (“the Act”) (Rectification of mistake apparent on record). The assessee has raised this ground against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO passed

Ratanlal Jaitlia HUF, Mumbai vs. CIT, Faceless

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 232/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ratanlal Jaitlia Huf National Faceless Assessment 602, Rajendra Ratna, Mahesh Nagar, Centre, Ward 31(1)(6), Sv Road, Goregaon (W), Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400 062

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Maheshwari
Section 144Section 154Section 250Section 69Section 69A

time to the appellant to respond. 9. The appellant has filed a rectification application u/s.154 with the learned A.O. that there is a mistake apparent from record while erroneously taking the sale consideration at Rs.2,37,151/- instead of Rs.416.12 only. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee

Merck Specialities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2056/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)

back the depreciation of Rs.5,49,87,789/- to the total income admitted by the assessee in the revised return. This constitutes a mistake apparent from record since the AO himself has given a fact finding that such depreciation was not claimed in the revised return. An amount which

ACIT, Ncc - 14 (1), Chennai vs. Shri S.P. Velayutham, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2710/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate) – Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 246

requesting to take opening stock as accepted and assessed as closing stock for AY 2010-11 which was rejected since there was no mistake apparent from record. The same led assessee to prefer further appeal for AY 2010-11 with a plea to reduce the value of closing stock

Diamonds 'R' Us, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 539/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

claim pertaining to the manufacturing activity as he had not made any negative comments about allowability for the manufacturing activity. This is a mistake apparent from record. The assessing officer is directed to allow the claim of the assessee under section 10 AA for the manufacturing activity the turnover

Diamonds 'R' Us, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 538/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

claim pertaining to the manufacturing activity as he had not made any negative comments about allowability for the manufacturing activity. This is a mistake apparent from record. The assessing officer is directed to allow the claim of the assessee under section 10 AA for the manufacturing activity the turnover

Diamonds 'R' Us, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 537/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

claim pertaining to the manufacturing activity as he had not made any negative comments about allowability for the manufacturing activity. This is a mistake apparent from record. The assessing officer is directed to allow the claim of the assessee under section 10 AA for the manufacturing activity the turnover

Diamonds 'R' Us, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 536/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

claim pertaining to the manufacturing activity as he had not made any negative comments about allowability for the manufacturing activity. This is a mistake apparent from record. The assessing officer is directed to allow the claim of the assessee under section 10 AA for the manufacturing activity the turnover

Asst. CIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tilaknagar Industries Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1355/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Baskaran B.R & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1355/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2009-10) Acit-1(3)(1), Room No.540, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Tilaknagar Industries Limited. 3Rd Floor, Indl.Assurance Bldg. Jd Tata Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 Pan:Aaact-6047-R ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Damor ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Dr. K.Shivram, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Neelam Jadhav सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 04/01/2021 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is Engaged In Manufacturing & Selling Of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. The 2 Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y 2009-10 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.29,19,12,503/- On 30/09/2009. The Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Was Passed On 07/12/2011. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer Issued Notice U/S. 154 Of The Act Dated 18/03/2013 To Rectify The Alleged Mistake In Assessment Order On Two Counts:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh DamorFor Respondent: Dr. K.Shivram, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Neelam Jadhav
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 154(7)Section 40

rectified by the Assessing Officer in proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act. Allowing depreciation at higher rate of MEE Plant was a mistake apparent from record which the Assessing Officer rectified in proceedings under section 154 of the Act. Similarly, in respect of short deduction of TDS on payment ... under section 154 of the Act are on debatable issue. 8. The provisions of section 154 empowers the Assessing Officer to rectify any mistake apparent from record in an order passed under the provisions of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer does not enjoy unfretted powers to rectify the mistake

M/S Expleo Solutions Employees Group Gratuity Scheme, Chennai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 98/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.98/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Expleo Solutions Employees Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Group Gratuity Scheme, 6A, Income Tax, Central Processing No. 283/3, 283/4, Prince Infocity – Ii, Center, Post Bag No. 2, Electronic City Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Omr Post Office, Bangalore 560 500. Kandanchavadi, Chennai 600 096. [Pan:Aabtt3195L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

Section 10Section 10(25)(iv)Section 11Section 11(1)(c)

action of the AO in rejecting the rectification application u/s 154 of the Act filed by the appellant. There is no mistake apparent from record. The action of the AO is therefore upheld and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. The ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee

M/S. Tcw Renewable Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle - 3 (1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee in

ITA 2367/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.:2366 & 2367/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2013 - 2014

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjunraj, C.A. for Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

2367/CHNY/2019 argument of the learned Counsel for the Assessee because, firstly the CIT(A) has adjudicated this issue and there is no mistake apparent from record in the order of the CIT(A), and even the plea of applicability of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ... I.T.A Nos.:2366 & 2367/CHNY/2019 of the Act, while adjudicating the appeal of the Assessee in the first round. Hence, we find no mistake apparent from record in the order of the CIT(A), i.e. the original order of CIT(A), and hence the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

M/S. Tcw Renewable Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle - 3 (1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee in

ITA 2366/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.:2366 & 2367/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year 2013 - 2014

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjunraj, C.A. for Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

2367/CHNY/2019 argument of the learned Counsel for the Assessee because, firstly the CIT(A) has adjudicated this issue and there is no mistake apparent from record in the order of the CIT(A), and even the plea of applicability of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ... I.T.A Nos.:2366 & 2367/CHNY/2019 of the Act, while adjudicating the appeal of the Assessee in the first round. Hence, we find no mistake apparent from record in the order of the CIT(A), i.e. the original order of CIT(A), and hence the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

ITA 7644/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited Addl. Cit, Range 7(1) V. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai Pan: Aaach2914F Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue Represented By : Shri Rajneesh Yadav

Section 144C(5)Section 35DSection 92C(2)

Vice President (third member) who vide para-13 of his order dated 09/08/2019, held that there exist mistake apparent from record which was to be rectified. Finally, following majority view, confirmatory order was passed by the bench on 27/09/2019. Thus, this issue has attained finality in assessee’s favor

M/S Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Udupi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 246/BANG/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, CA
Section 244ASection 260ASection 43

Nos.3, 4 and 6/2022: 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in dismissing as belated, the mistake apparent from record added vide Memo dated 10.08.2020 to the miscellaneous petition filed in time on 03.02.2020? Common Substantial Questions of Law in ITA Nos.2

M/S Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Udupi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 244/BANG/2018[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, CA
Section 244ASection 260ASection 43

Nos.3, 4 and 6/2022: 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in dismissing as belated, the mistake apparent from record added vide Memo dated 10.08.2020 to the miscellaneous petition filed in time on 03.02.2020? Common Substantial Questions of Law in ITA Nos.2

M/S Maharashtra Apex Corporation Limited, Manipal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Udupi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 242/BANG/2018[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar, CA
Section 244ASection 260ASection 43

Nos.3, 4 and 6/2022: 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has erred in dismissing as belated, the mistake apparent from record added vide Memo dated 10.08.2020 to the miscellaneous petition filed in time on 03.02.2020? Common Substantial Questions of Law in ITA Nos.2