← 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

Gauri Ananya Marriage Beneficiary Trust, Kanpur vs. DCIT Circle-1(1)(1), Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 388/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Gauri Ananya Marriage V. The Dcit Beneficiary Trust Circle 1(1)(1) 133/185, M Block Kanpur Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aactg6467D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Saurabh Dubey, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 10.10.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Beneficiary Trust Created Vide Trust Deed Dated 04.01.2016 For The Benefit Of Two Minor Daughters Of Shri Sharad Kumar Agarwal, Namely Kumari Gauri & Kumari Ananya. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 15.07.2017, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.4,86,279/-. As Per Computation Of Income Of The Assessee- Trust, The Tax Payable Was Rs.24,337/-. However, While Processing The Return Of Income Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), The

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Dubey, D.R
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 164Section 43(1)

charged by the Dy. CIT, CPC in the intimation u/s 143(1) at maximum marginal rate was a mistake apparent from record which was liable to be rectified in the order u/s 154 of the Act and this having not been done, the Ld. CIT(A) should have directed ... should have held that the computation of tax at maximum marginal rate made in the intimation u/s 143(1) was a mistake apparent from record which ought to have been rectified by the Dy. CIT, CPC in the order passed u/s 154 of the Act. 5. BECAUSE in any case

Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Range 5 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is allowed/partly

ITA 7269/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.7269/Mum/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Limited), Mondelez House, Unit No.2001, 20Th Floor Tower-3 (Wing C) India Bulls Finance Centre), Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Pan : Aaac0460H ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-5(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate Shri Hiten Chande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :18.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234C

applied for groundno. 11 to 13 as well. The Tribunal has erroneously relied on the order for A.Y.2008-09, this being a mistake apparent from record may be rectified and thefindings given in Para 14 to 16 may be adopted for Ground No. 11 to 13 also. 4. In view

Ap Pollution Control Board, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 298/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.298/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessme298Nt Year: 2021-22) Andhra Pradesh Pollution Vs. Dy. Cit Control Board, (Exemption Circle) Vijayawada Vijayawada Pan:Aaaja1610Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Satyanarayana Murthy, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 06/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revision Order Dated 11/03/2025 Of The Learned Cit (Exemptions), Passed U/S 263 Of The Act For The A.Y.2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Murthy, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 10(46)Section 11(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Assessment can always be rectified u/s 154 as the Order passed in contradiction to a subsequent Judgment of the Supreme Court is a mistake apparent from record and the assessment can be rectified within 4 years from the date of the Supreme Court's Judgment. 3.2 Considering the decision given