← 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

Giraffe Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 9, Mumbai

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

ITA 2663/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegiraffe Developers Pvt Vs. Pr. Cit – 9, Ltd Room No. 214, 2Nd 111, G Wing, Akruti Floor, Aayakar Commercial Complex, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Next To Akruti Centre Churchgate, Point, Central Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn2778D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Madhur Agrawal & Shri.Fenil Bhatt.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri.S.Anbuselvam.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 40A(2)Section 92D

somehow not been taken for the computation of assessed income. Without prejudice to the above, assessee states that the above is a mistake apparent from records and on account of oversight of the LAO and is subject to rectification u/s 154 of the Act. M/s Giraffe Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai ... however the A.O. has not considered the interest income for the computation of assessed income. The Ld. AR submitted that it is a mistake apparent from record and rectification petition u/s 154 of the Act is filed. We considering the facts and submissions do not find any infirmity

M/S. Khoday India Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 97/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Khoday India Ltd., The Income-Tax 7Th Mile, Brewery House, Officer, Kanakapura Road, Ward 4 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 062. Bangalore. Pan: Aaack6734C Vs. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Sridhar, Ca : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 09/12/2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru-11, Bengaluru In Ita No.Cit(A)- 11/Bng/Tr.10036/2018-19 (Din: Itba /Apl /M/ 250 /2021-22/ 1037634908(1) Dated:09.12.2021 Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed U/S.154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated:14.02.2018. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Directing The Assessing Officer To Set Off The Entire

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, CA
Section 115BSection 154Section 68Section 71

same cannot be subject of rectification. So on the basis of material available on records it cannot be said that there was a mistake apparent from record.” 4. Aggrieved by the above order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. The Ld.AR submitted

Dosti Reality Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle, 1(1) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 157/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 157/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Circle-1(1)(1), Dosti Realty Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 1St Floor, Lawrence & Mayo Road, Mumbai-400 020 House, 276, Dr. D. N. Road, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccs0746E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rahul Hakani, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ajay Chandra, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 07.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 27.12.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Order Passed U/S 144C

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 154

Finance cost in Work in Progress. Therefore the said amount of Rs10,75,29,743/- cannot be considered once again which constitute a mistake apparent from record. 3. You have also not given credit for MAT of Rs.1,47,98,331/- to which our client is entitled to u/s. 115JAA ... assessed income whereas the provisions of section 234C categorically required such computation on the basis of the returned income. As these constitute mistakes apparent from record, you are requested to kindly rectify the same by passing an appropriate order

Chouhan Builders India Housing Development P. L Td vs. Mumbai

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

ITA 4793/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalchouhan Builders India Housing Development P. Ltd. 104A, Sajid Tower, Amboli, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaccc1839Q ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit -9(2)(1), R.No. 665A, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. K. Shivram With Ms. Neelam Jadhav Respondent By : Sh. Pankaj Kumar Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Vide Order Dated 31.05.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit (A) 16 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit (A)) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Assessment Of The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.15,00,000/- As Against Loss Of Rs. 89,84,401.24 Returned By The Appellant. 2. Order Dt.31/05/19 Passed By Ld. Cit(A) As Well As Order Dt.27/12/18 Passed By Ld. Ao Were Bad In Law As The Same Were Not Based On Facts But Were Based On Assumptions Or Surmises Or Erroneous Findings & Has Not Considered Submissions Made By Appellant Or Authorities Cited By Appellant.

For Appellant: Sh. K. Shivram with Ms. Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Sh. Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 69A

adjusted against alleged income of Rs. 15 lacs. The Ld. CIT(A) has directed AO to rectify mistake apparent from records by allowing ground No.6 to 8.” 2. At the outset, the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee Mr. Akshay Doshi submitted that the entire addition which has been

M/S. Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 69/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Prestige Estates Projects The Deputy Ltd., Commissioner Of Prestige Falcon Tower, Income Tax, No. 19, Brunton Road, Central Circle – 1 Bangalore – North, (1), Bangalore – 560 025. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aabcp8096K Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 23.11.2021 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. General Ground 1.1 The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bengaluru (`Ao") Has Erred In Passing The Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act-) In The Manner Passed By Him & The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Bangalore

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

deducing that the action of the AO vide order dated 19.03.2020 denying the relief given to the Appellant vide order dated 28.04.2016 constituted mistake apparent from record. 2.5. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, the order passed under section 154 dated 19.03.2020 should be quashed ... Grounds relatin,, to mistake apparent from record 3.1. The learned AO has erred in making an addition of Rs. 2 crores in the order passed under section 154 dated 19.3.2020 as a mistake apparent from record. There being no mistake apparent from record, the impugned addition of Rs. 2 crores