← 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

Rural Development Foundation, Anand vs. CPC, Bengaluru Juris. AO- the ITO, Ward-Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 927/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.927/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Rural Development Cpc, Bengaluru बनाम/ Foundation Juris.Ao – The Ito Ward- V/S. Aitc, 2Nd Floor Exemption Narayan Complex Vadodara – 390 007 Nr.Shubh Laxmi Shopping Centre Station Road Anand – 388 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabtr 1090 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Arti N. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 21/02/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-2020. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Rural Development Foundation Vs. Cpc, Bengaluru Juris Ao The Ito, Ward-Exemption Asst. Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Arti N. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P. Meena, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Bengaluru, rejected the rectification petition vide order dated 27.06.2023, holding that such an issue did not fall within the ambit of a “mistake apparent from record” under section 154 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Before ... Rural Development Foundation vs. CPC, Bengaluru Juris AO The ITO, Ward-Exemption Asst. Year : 2019-20 scope of that provision is confined to mistakes apparent from record, and not to condonation of delay or relaxation of statutory conditions. The appellate authority further noted that the Act provides a specific remedy

Seetharaman Bakthavatsalam, Trichy vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1), Trichy

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 1304/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Mr.Karthik Dasari, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154

appeal by holding that the AO’s action with regard to implementation of the directions of Ld. CIT(A) did not constitute mistake apparent from record as it required detailed investigation of facts and interpretation of law. The relevant findings ... which falls beyond the scope of rectification under section 154. The appellant has not made out a case that the grounds raised are mistakes apparent from record. Hence, the AO has rightly rejected the rectification application, and there is no apparent mistake in the OGE, Hence the grounds

Seetharaman Bakthavatsalam, Trichy vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1), Trichy

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 1303/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Mr.Karthik Dasari, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154

appeal by holding that the AO’s action with regard to implementation of the directions of Ld. CIT(A) did not constitute mistake apparent from record as it required detailed investigation of facts and interpretation of law. The relevant findings ... which falls beyond the scope of rectification under section 154. The appellant has not made out a case that the grounds raised are mistakes apparent from record. Hence, the AO has rightly rejected the rectification application, and there is no apparent mistake in the OGE, Hence the grounds

Seetharaman Bakthavatsalam, Trichy vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1), Trichy

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 1302/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Mr.Karthik Dasari, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154

appeal by holding that the AO’s action with regard to implementation of the directions of Ld. CIT(A) did not constitute mistake apparent from record as it required detailed investigation of facts and interpretation of law. The relevant findings ... which falls beyond the scope of rectification under section 154. The appellant has not made out a case that the grounds raised are mistakes apparent from record. Hence, the AO has rightly rejected the rectification application, and there is no apparent mistake in the OGE, Hence the grounds

Seetharaman Bakthavatsalam, Trichy vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1), Trichy

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 1301/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Mr.Karthik Dasari, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154

appeal by holding that the AO’s action with regard to implementation of the directions of Ld. CIT(A) did not constitute mistake apparent from record as it required detailed investigation of facts and interpretation of law. The relevant findings ... which falls beyond the scope of rectification under section 154. The appellant has not made out a case that the grounds raised are mistakes apparent from record. Hence, the AO has rightly rejected the rectification application, and there is no apparent mistake in the OGE, Hence the grounds

Seetharaman Bakthavatsalam, Trichy vs. ACIT, Circle 3(1), Trichy

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 1300/CHNY/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Mr.Karthik Dasari, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154

appeal by holding that the AO’s action with regard to implementation of the directions of Ld. CIT(A) did not constitute mistake apparent from record as it required detailed investigation of facts and interpretation of law. The relevant findings ... which falls beyond the scope of rectification under section 154. The appellant has not made out a case that the grounds raised are mistakes apparent from record. Hence, the AO has rightly rejected the rectification application, and there is no apparent mistake in the OGE, Hence the grounds

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Swargate vs. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 825/PUN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 10Section 10(46)Section 143(1)

appeal before ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee by first holding that there was no mistake apparent from record and further held that there is lot of difference between the claim of exemption u/s.10(23C) and Section 11 of the Act. However

Kailash Gahlot, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 3431/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.3431/Del./2023, A.Y. 2015-16 Kailash Gahlot Deputy Commissioner Of C-6/6172, Vasant Kunj, Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Central Circle-4, Pan: Aajpg2849N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca Sh. Anmol Jha, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 153DSection 69C

Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, supra, it is well settled principles of law that non-consideration of detailed submissions would result in a mistake apparent from record in the order. 10. In view of above material facts and well settled principles of law, impugned order dated 02.07.2024 being unsustainable

M/S. 9Th Street Architects, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1463/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 154Section 250Section 69A

income disclosed during survey. 2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming that there was a mistake apparent on record of not charging the income disclosed during the course of survey at a special rate u/s 115BBE so that the same could be rectified ... that the issue of charging tax at special rate u/s 115BBE being debatable and possible to have two views, it was not a mistake apparent from record which could be rectified u/s 154. 2.3 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld.CIT

Gauri Ananya Educational Beneficiary Trust, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal is dismissed for statistical purposes

ITA 83/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 161Section 164(1)

intimation attained finality. Thereafter, intimation could have been rectified u/s 154 of the I.T. Act only if there was a mistake apparent from record. I.T.A. No.83/Lkw/2023 Assessment Year:2017-18 12 However, on consideration of the trust deed, it is found that there is no error in taxing the assessee

Akshat Education and Chartable Trust, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward Exemption, Vadodara

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

ITA 1653/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of CPC despite there being a clear mistake apparent from record in the order passed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act. Asst. Year : 2022-23 - 2– 2. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred

Harshadkumar Hargovandas Patel, Kalol vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Mehsana

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

ITA 125/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 55A

that the computation was erroneous as per the records of the Sub-Registrar's Office. The Assessing Officer held that this was a "mistake apparent from record" within the meaning of section 154 of the Act, as the correct sale consideration for computation of capital gains should have been

Sincere Architects Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cirlce-7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal no

ITA 974/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 194A

appellant should have filed an appeal against the order u/s.147 rws 144 rws 144B dated 28.03.2022. However, it is not a mistake apparent from record. The AO has assessed the income on the basis of information available on record and the income cannot be changed u/s.154 of the Act. Hence

Sincere Architects Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result the appeal no

ITA 973/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 194A

appellant should have filed an appeal against the order u/s.147 rws 144 rws 144B dated 28.03.2022. However, it is not a mistake apparent from record. The AO has assessed the income on the basis of information available on record and the income cannot be changed u/s.154 of the Act. Hence

Cpl Holdings LLP (Successor to Cpl Holdings Private Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1022/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue has not been disputed. The contention of the assessee is that this was only a mistake apparent from record and should have been subjected to rectification proceeding under Section 154 of the Act. Reliance has been placed in this regard ... plea of the assessee that the Ld. PCIT could not have passed order under Section 263 of the Act in respect of a mistake apparent from record which could be rectified under Section 154 of the Act, cannot be accepted. We cannot preclude the Ld. PCIT from exercising his jurisdiction

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

will not be entitled to any relief, interim or final. In view of these facts it is held that there is no mistake apparent from record as the order has been passed on basis of all the documents submitted by appellant AR 'At Bar' during appellant proceedings. CIT (A) does

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

will not be entitled to any relief, interim or final. In view of these facts it is held that there is no mistake apparent from record as the order has been passed on basis of all the documents submitted by appellant AR 'At Bar' during appellant proceedings. CIT (A) does

Lotus Footwear Enterprises Limited-India Branch, Tiruvannamalai vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(2), Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 800/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 10A

prayed before this Tribunal that the grounds Nos.3 to 9 (excluding 6) were not adjudicated in the order dated 20.11.2024, which constitutes a mistake apparent from record. 9. The MA filed by the assessee was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 11.06.2025, wherein the earlier order ... 800/Chny/2022 Further the assessee also prayed that the grounds Nos.3 to 9 (excluding 6) were not adjudicated, which constitutes a mistake apparent from record. 71. The Tribunal recalled the said order of this Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the captioned appeal by disposing of the MA dated 11.06.2025 in respect

Lotus Footwear Enterprises Limited-India Branch, Tiruvannamalai vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(2), Chennai

ITA 799/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No.: 20/Chny/2021 &

Section 10ASection 115J

prayed before this Tribunal that the grounds Nos.3 to 9 (excluding 6) were not adjudicated in the order dated 20.11.2024, which constitutes a mistake apparent from record. 9. The MA filed by the assessee was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 11.06.2025, wherein the earlier order

Lotus Footwear Enterprises Limited-India Branch, Tiruvannamalai vs. DCIT, International Tax 1(2), Chennai

In the result all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 798/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.A. &
Section 10A

prayed before this Tribunal that the grounds Nos.3 to 9 (excluding 6) were not adjudicated in the order dated 20.11.2024, which constitutes a mistake apparent from record. The MA filed by the assessee was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 11.06.2025, wherein the earlier order of the Tribunal ... 800/Chny/2022 Further the assessee also prayed that the grounds Nos.3 to 9 (excluding 6) were not adjudicated, which constitutes a mistake apparent from record. 71. The Tribunal recalled the said order of this Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the captioned appeal by disposing of the MA dated 11.06.2025 in respect