← All Phrases

“mistake apparent on record”

Rectification & RevisionSection 154Section 154888 judgments

The decision most relied on for mistake apparent on record is Kourani v. Union OF India (83 Taxmann.com 137), cited in 1,708 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on mistake apparent on 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 on record

Ahmedabad Strips Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, TDS Circle, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2211/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mamta Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 154Section 202Section 206Section 206CSection 210Section 271C

order u/s 206C(6A) r.w.s 206C(7), the assessee company has filed the application u/s 154 of the Act to rectify the mistake apparent on record. The Ld. JCIT has passed the order u/s 271CA of the Act for penalty on 11.12.2019 mentioning that the rectification application was rejected

Shalby Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1005/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(ib)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

deliberately filed reply with earlier name that means the assessee itself has accepted the earlier name and that cannot be treated as a mistake apparent on record and therefore the assessment order cannot be held as bad in law. Thus, the said contention of the assessee is dismissed. As relates

Tehmina K Katrak Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Mumbai

ITA 549/MUM/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
Section 11Section 119Section 139Section 154Section 92E

ought to have held that the rectification u/s 154 denying the trust exemption itself was without jurisdiction, and not a 'mistake apparent from record'. 6. Your Appellant prays that the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, (DCIT) be directed to grant the exemption under Section 11 of The Income ... Assessing Officer cannot be permitted to review the earlier decision in the guise of correcting a mistake apparent on record under Section 154 of the Act. We have already noted hereinabove that the Assessee was not put to notice in terms of Section 154(3) of the Act before passing

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2577/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal.

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 PER BENCH: ITA No(s). 2571, 2573 - 2577/CHNY/2025 for the Assessment Year

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2576/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

added certain rental incomes to the total income as per return of income. In this regard, it has been observed that there are mistakes apparent on record while offering the rental income to tax. :-43-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 2. Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam ... Interest u/s. 234A & 234B has to be re-considered as per the Act. From the above it is clear that there has been mistake apparent on record which need to be rectified in accordance to the provisions of Section 154 of the Act. I further request your Ld. Authority

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2575/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

added certain rental incomes to the total income as per return of income. In this regard, it has been observed that there are mistakes apparent on record while offering the rental income to tax. :-43-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 2. Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam ... Interest u/s. 234A & 234B has to be re-considered as per the Act. From the above it is clear that there has been mistake apparent on record which need to be rectified in accordance to the provisions of Section 154 of the Act. I further request your Ld. Authority

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2574/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

added certain rental incomes to the total income as per return of income. In this regard, it has been observed that there are mistakes apparent on record while offering the rental income to tax. :-43-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 2. Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam ... Interest u/s. 234A & 234B has to be re-considered as per the Act. From the above it is clear that there has been mistake apparent on record which need to be rectified in accordance to the provisions of Section 154 of the Act. I further request your Ld. Authority

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2573/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

added certain rental incomes to the total income as per return of income. In this regard, it has been observed that there are mistakes apparent on record while offering the rental income to tax. :-43-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 2. Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam ... Interest u/s. 234A & 234B has to be re-considered as per the Act. From the above it is clear that there has been mistake apparent on record which need to be rectified in accordance to the provisions of Section 154 of the Act. I further request your Ld. Authority

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2571/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

added certain rental incomes to the total income as per return of income. In this regard, it has been observed that there are mistakes apparent on record while offering the rental income to tax. :-43-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 2. Property at Navin Building, Madipakkam ... Interest u/s. 234A & 234B has to be re-considered as per the Act. From the above it is clear that there has been mistake apparent on record which need to be rectified in accordance to the provisions of Section 154 of the Act. I further request your Ld. Authority

Thanushkodi Narayanan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2570/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: This Tribunal. 2. Since, The Facts Are The Identical Across All The Appeals / For All The Assessment Years, Except For The Nature Of The Additions / Disallowances Varying In Few Of The Assessment Year(S) Before This Tribunal In The Present Batch Of 6 Appeals, The Appeal Arising From The A.Y. 2012-13 Is Being Taken Up As The Lead Case With The Consent Of The Both The Ld. Ar As Well As The Departmental Representatives. 3. The Brief Fact Of The Present Case Is That The Assessee, Shri Thanushkodi Narayanan, Is The Managing Director Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt Ltd. The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 27.09.2012 In Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.24,87,430/-. 4. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Carried Out In Terms Of Section 132 Of The Act On 04.10.2017 In The Residential Premises Of The Assessee & Also In The Premises Of M/S.Annai Builders Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. In Which The Assessee Is The Managing Director. 5. Thereafter, A Notice U/S.153A Of The Act For The A.Y.2012-13 Was Issued On 25.09.2018 To The Assessee By The Assessing Officer (In Short “Ao”) & In Response To The Same, The Assessee Had Filed E-Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 On 17.08.2019 In Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,53,440/-. :-3-:

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

:-2-: ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571, 2573 to 2577/Chny/2025 PER BENCH: ITA No(s). 2571, 2573 - 2577/CHNY/2025 for the Assessment

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Narsingpur vs. Asst. Commissioner of Incometax, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 149/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40Section 43B

rejecting application of assessee u/s 154 for rectification of apparent mistake. Assessing and confirming income in the hands of assessee is a mistake apparent on record because income is fully exempt u/s 10(26AAB). 2. Order passed by Learned CIT(A) rejecting application

Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Narsingpur vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur06 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40Section 43B

rejecting application of assessee u/s 154 for rectification of apparent mistake. Assessing and confirming income in the hands of assessee is a mistake apparent on record because income is fully exempt u/s 10(26AAB). 2. Order passed by Learned CIT(A) rejecting application

Portescap India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 7479/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2019-20 Portescap India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Unit No. 101, Tower Ii, Income Tax, Seepz Sez, Vs. Circle-2(3)(1), Andheri East, Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Seepz S.O., Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400096. M.K.Road, Pan : Aaack4896K Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pranay Gandhi A/W. Shri Lekh Mehta, For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-03-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 43B

there is no material on record which justify such withdrawal of claim of deduction u/s 10AA of the Act and more so any mistake apparent on record which justify 6 such action on part of AO/CPC and such a action therefore deserve to be set-aside and is hereby

Jesaram Jeumal Gurbani, Akola vs. ITO Ward 1 Akola, Akola

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

ITA 19/NAG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy, Am

For Appellant: Miss Alfiya Rozie, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 115JSection 154Section 43B

dismissed in keeping in view of the fact that the appeal emanates from the order under section 154 and there is the mistake apparent on record. 4. We have given a thoughtful consideration in the subject technicalities should not come as a barrier for rendering substantial justice. Accordingly

Vagdevi Educational Society, Kodad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Suryapet

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

ITA 1578/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MANJUNATHA G., HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

appellant society u/s 154 of the Act on the ground that the said application is not maintainable, because there was no prima facie mistake apparent on record in the order of the A.O. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons given by the A.O. to reject ... assessing the gross receipts of the assessee as its income, without allowing deductions for various expenditure claimed by the assessee, suffers from mistake apparent on record, which needs to be rectified u/s 154 of the Act. Because although the assessee has reported gross receipts and corresponding expenditure incurred for running

Vagdevi Educational Society, Kodad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Suryapet

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

ITA 1577/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MANJUNATHA G., HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

appellant society u/s 154 of the Act on the ground that the said application is not maintainable, because there was no prima facie mistake apparent on record in the order of the A.O. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons given by the A.O. to reject ... assessing the gross receipts of the assessee as its income, without allowing deductions for various expenditure claimed by the assessee, suffers from mistake apparent on record, which needs to be rectified u/s 154 of the Act. Because although the assessee has reported gross receipts and corresponding expenditure incurred for running

Vagdevi Educational Society, Kodad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Suryapet

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

ITA 1576/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANJUNATHA G., HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

appellant society u/s 154 of the Act on the ground that the said application is not maintainable, because there was no prima facie mistake apparent on record in the order of the A.O. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons given by the A.O. to reject ... assessing the gross receipts of the assessee as its income, without allowing deductions for various expenditure claimed by the assessee, suffers from mistake apparent on record, which needs to be rectified u/s 154 of the Act. Because although the assessee has reported gross receipts and corresponding expenditure incurred for running

Power Security Corp. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-5(2), Chennai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2943/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2943/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, C.A ()For Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 154Section 250

binding precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)), constitutes a "mistake apparent from record," as held in ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC). Thus, the rejection of the section 154 application ... therefore the assessment is bad in law. The A.O rejected the petition holding that the assessee raised is not a mistake apparent on record and is outside the purview of section 154. The assessee preferred further appeal before the CIT(A) against the order of rejection

Shree Keshav Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Junagadh vs. The DCIT/ACIT, Cir 1(1), Rajkot

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

ITA 794/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Taxman 322 (SC), wherein amongst others, it was held that non-adherence to orders of Jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court is a mistake apparent on record, therefore, the above orders of the jurisdictional Tribunal require rectification under section 254 (2) of the Act. In this regard, we find that

Shree Keshav Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Junagadh vs. The DCIT/ACIT, Cir - 1(1), Rajkot

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee, are allowed

ITA 793/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Taxman 322 (SC), wherein amongst others, it was held that non-adherence to orders of Jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court is a mistake apparent on record, therefore, the above orders of the jurisdictional Tribunal require rectification under section 254 (2) of the Act. In this regard, we find that