“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

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

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

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

Gujarat State Petronet Limited, Gandhinagar vs. DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 991/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.991/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

surcharge and education cess can be allowed u/s.154 of the Act was a debatable issue and that it was not a case of mistake apparent from record, therefore, the AO did not have any jurisdiction to reduce the claim of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section ... credit u/s.115JAA of the Act is inclusive and surcharge and education cess. Under the circumstances, it was not a case of mistake apparent on record, rather it was a debatable issue and, therefore, the AO was not justified in reducing the MAT credit by invoking the provisions of section

Income Tax Officer, Ferozepur vs. Universal Biomass Energy Pvt Ltd, Guruharsahai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 231/ASR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C.A

Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 801A(7)

allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition by observing as under: “4.2. Since the denial of tax credit was a mistake apparent from record, the appellant had preferred a rectification petition u/s 154 before the CPC against the order passed u/s 143(1) dated 30.04.2021. The rectification

Rajvi Jewellers, Panchmahal vs. The Dy.CIT, Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 232/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Respondent: Smt. Malarkodi R., Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 69B

well as in law, there was no mistake on part of CIT(Appeals) in upholding rectification of original order, which contained a mistake apparent from record, requiring rectification u/s 154 of the Act. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court

Shri Amit Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT, - 33(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

ITA 3332/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain & Shri Mahaveer Jain, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, (Sr. DR)

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

Thereafter, Miscellaneous Application (MA 57 & 58/MUM/2023) was filed on the ground of non-consideration of the judgement of Coordinate Benches which leads to mistake apparent from record. The hon'ble ITAT dismissed the MA vide order dated 31.08.2023 by stating that satisfaction note has not been recorded in this case

Sarjoo Prasad Rajpat, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(4), Kanpur

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

ITA 343/LKW/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2009-10 M/S Sarjoo Prasad Rajpat Vs. Ito-1(1)(4), 55/15, Kahoo Kothi, Kanpur 16/69/ Kanpur Pan:Aaffs5661Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Pradeep Kumar Sahgal, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Deepak Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.03.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 154 Passed By The Ld. Ao On 25.04.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Order In Appeal Passed By The Ld Cit(A), Nfac Is Bad In Law & Facts & Deserves To Be Quashed By Allowing The Appeal. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Has Erred In Law & In Facts, In Upholding The Order Of Ld. Ao In Rejecting The Application Made Under Section 154 Of The Act. 3. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Rejecting Contention Of Appellant For Rectification Of Mistake U/S 154 Of The Act On The Ground That Appellant Ought To Have Filed Revised Return Of Income Within Due Date If There Was Any Mistake In Filing Of Original Return Of Income. The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Ought To Have Appreciated That Ao Is Bound To Compute Correct Income As Per Provisions Of The Act & Tax Cannot Be Levied At Higher Amount Due To Error Made While Filing Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Kumar Sahgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(8)Section 250

made at the time of filing of return resulting into filing of amounts interchangeably under wrong heads would not qualify as a rectifiable mistake apparent from record u/s 154 of the Act although on a bare perusal of the income tax return filed such a mistake becomes clearly apparent ... facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC ought to have appreciated that expression "any mistake apparent from record appearing in provisions of section 154 of the Act extends to amendment of intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act and mistake committed

Rani Channamma Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

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

ITA 826/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Nagraj Gaddi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing

Section 119(2)(b)Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80ASection 80P

chosen not to do so. It has later on filed an application u/s 154 and claimed that the said disallowance was a mistake apparent from record. In rectification the most important aspect which needs to be looked into is whether the claim of the appellant within the scope of section

Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Beed vs. DCIT(E) Circle, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2177/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2177/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shetkari Shikshan Prasarak Vs. Dcit, Exemption Circle, Mandal, Aurangabad. Anand Bhavan, Nagar Road, At Post Tq Ashti, Dist. Beed- 414203. Pan : Aaets0130K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: S/Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari &

Section 115Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 250(6)Section 80G

reply of the assessee learned CIT appeal dismissed the appeal by observing as under “6.3 I have carefully perused the matter. This is mistake apparent from record. Charging of interest is mandatory not optional or discretionary. In the assessment order the assessing officer has stated issue demand notice, if there ... error in computation of demand it is mistake apparent from record. Interest under section 234A and 234B is leviable as per law and error in computation of demand can be rectified under section 154 of the Income Tax Act.” 4.1 It is this order against which the assessee

Corona Steel Industry Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2531/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY (Vice President)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri susanta Saha, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(ii)

further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the return of income, there was a mistake apparent from record and in this regard, the assessee filed a rectification application u/s.154 of the Act stating that in the given facts and circumstances

Ramgopal Birla Textile (P) Ltd., Kolhapur vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 399/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.399/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Ramgopal Birla Textile (P.) Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Ltd., 12/693, Birla Bhawan Rajaram Road, Ichalkaranji, Hatkanangale, Kolhapur- 416115. Pan : Aabcr2743K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154o

action has arisen at the stage of 143(1), the issue cannot be adjudicated upon in the present appeal as there is no mistake apparent from record at the stage 154. Therefore, the grounds of appeal are dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is treated

Hercules Hoists Limited, Raigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5445/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

Stock Exchange Ltd. (225 ITR 234) consideration of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision will render the decision of the ITAT suffering from mistake apparent from record. Accordingly, in our considered opinion the issue in this regard needs to be examined on the touchstone of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court

Hercules Hoists Limited, Raigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5444/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

Hercules Hoists Limited, Raigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5443/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

Hercules Hoists Limited, Raigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5442/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 22Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1441/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

supra). The ld. AR further submitted that the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is to be treated as a mistake apparent on record within the meaning of section 154 of the Act and in this regard drew our attention to Circular No. 68 (F.NO. 245/17/71-A&PAC) dated ... extract of the Circular is as under: “SECTION 154 . RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES 899. Mistakes apparent from records - Whether can be treated as such on the basis of subsequent decision of Supreme Court 1. The Board are advised that a mistake arising as a result of a subsequent interpretation

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1405/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1404/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1403/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

Udaan Sewa Samiti, Kanpur Nagar vs. CPC Banglore, Kanpur

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 150/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Udaan Seva Samiti V. The Cpc 250/4, Juhi Lal Colony Bangalore Kanpur Nagar Uttar Pradesh Tan/Pan:Aaaau7543F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.11.2023, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Mumbai For Assessment Year 2019-20. 3.1 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Society Registered Under Section 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’). The Assessee-Society Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Under Section 139(1) On 26.01.2021, Declaring Total Income At Nil. The Assessee-Society Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.12,97,442/- Relating To The Amount Applied For Charitable & Religious Purposes During The Previous Year. The Central Processing Centre (Cpc) Processed The Return Under Section 143(1) Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

allowed. 5. That the L.D CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the error in the Audit Report is a basic human error a mistake apparent from record which ought to be rectified and not penalized. 6. Your humble appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw of any Grounds

Ashutosh Girish Bharkhada, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 929/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 17(1)

indicates salary u/s 17(1) is (2010712 + 899118 = 2909830) and house rent allowance u/s 10(13A) is (97316 + 124444 = 221760). Therefore, disallowance is mistake apparent from record. The disallowance is without jurisdiction and bad in law and ought to be deleted. 6. The appellant craves, leave to add to alter

Akola Zillha Nayayalayin Karamchari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Akola vs. ITO Ward -1, Akola

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 314/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Kumar Gupta, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80P

reasons and basis of allowability of deduction u/s 80P of the Act may defer every year. Since the same is not a mistake apparent from record and rather requires deliberation on various aspects of the case as well as documentary evidences and the Assessee’s previous application