“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

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 on record

Solan Filling Station, Solan vs. ITO, Ward -1, Shimla

In the result, the addition so made and sustained by the ld CIT(A) is hereby deleted

ITA 431/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jaspal Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154

therefore most respectfully requested that the proceedings under section 154 of the Income tax Act may please be dropped there being no mistake apparent on records and rectifiable under the Act has crept in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. 6. Further, reliance was placed ... same read as under: 4. In view of these facts, notice under section 154 was issued to the assessee proposing the rectification of mistake apparent from records. In response to the said notice, the assessee has furnished reply and stated that as per the company norms/rules/rates shrinkage is allowed

Ananda Nagar Development Society., South 24 Parganas vs. CIT(Exemption), Kolkata.

In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Department is hereby allowed and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 942/KOL/2023[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2025

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarm.A. No.: 34/Kol/2024 In I.T.A. No.: 942/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: N.A. Cit (Exemptions), Kolkata .............. Applicant Vs. Ananda Nagar Development Society ………….. Respondent At 475, Gouranga Palli, Vip Nagar, Kasba-Tiljala, Vip Nagar S.O., South 24 Parganas, West Bengal-700100. (Pan: Aabta1419L) &

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

10th, 2025 ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: M.A. No.: 34/KOL/2024 The present Miscellaneous Application has been moved by the Revenue pleading that a mistake apparent on record has occurred in the order of the Tribunal dated 09.01.2024 passed in ITA No. 942/KOL/2023. The present M.A. No.: 34/KOL/2024 & Ananda Nagar Development ... granted to new Trusts and not to those Trusts which were already registered before 01.04.2021. It has, therefore, been pleaded that a mistake apparent on record has occurred in the order of the Tribunal. 1.2. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has also agreed that the assessee had applied for final

Ghosaldanga Adibasi Seva Sangha., Birbhum vs. CIT(Exempt), Kolkata.

In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Department is hereby allowed and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 939/KOL/2023[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2025

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarm.A. No.: 33/Kol/2024 In I.T.A. No.: 939/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: N.A. Cit (Exemptions), Kolkata .............. Applicant Vs. Ghosaldanga Adibasi Seva Sangha ………….. Respondent At Ghosaldanga, P.O. Sattore, Dist. Birbhum, West Bengal-731236. (Pan: Aaaag2891A) &

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

10th, 2025 ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: M.A. No.: 33/KOL/2024 The present Miscellaneous Application has been moved by the Revenue pleading that a mistake apparent on record has occurred in the order of the Tribunal dated 09.01.2024 passed in ITA No. 939/KOL/2023. The present appeal has also been moved ... granted to new Trusts and not to those Trusts which were already registered before 01.04.2021. It has, therefore, been pleaded that a mistake apparent on record has occurred in the order of the Tribunal. 1.2. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has also agreed that the assessee had applied for final

Rabindra Bharati Society., Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata.

In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Department is hereby allowed and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 911/KOL/2023[00]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2025

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarm.A. No.: 32/Kol/2024 In I.T.A. No.: 911/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: N.A. Cit (Exemptions), Kolkata .............. Applicant Vs. Rabindra Bharati Society ………….. Respondent At 5, Dwarka Nath Tagore Lane, P.O. Jorasanko, Dist. Kolkata, Pin-700007. (Pan: Aabtr7964H) &

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

10th, 2025 ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: M.A. No.: 32/KOL/2024 The present Miscellaneous Application has been moved by the Revenue pleading that a mistake apparent on record has occurred in the order of the Tribunal dated 09.01.2024 passed in ITA No. 911/KOL/2023. The present M.A. No.: 32/KOL/2024 & Rabindra Bharati Society ... granted to new Trusts and not to those Trusts which were already registered before 01.04.2021. It has, therefore, been pleaded that a mistake apparent on record has occurred in the order of the Tribunal. 1.2. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has also agreed that the assessee had applied for final

Indira Trust, Hooghly vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Department is hereby allowed and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1018/KOL/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2025

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarm.A. No.: 35/Kol/2024 In I.T.A. No.: 1018/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: N.A. Cit (Exemptions), Kolkata .............. Applicant Vs. Indira Trust ………….. Respondent At Panisheola, Paniseola B.O Hooghly, West Bengal, India-712405 (Pan: Aaati8834N) &

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

10th, 2025 ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, AM : MA No. 35/Kol/2024: The present Miscellaneous Application has been moved by the Revenue pleading that a mistake apparent on record has occurred in the order of the Tribunal dated 09.01.2024 passed in ITA No. 1018/KOL/2023. The present M.A. No.: 35/KOL/2024 & Indira Trust appeal ... granted to new Trusts and not to those Trusts which were already registered before 01.04.2021. It has, therefore, been pleaded that a mistake apparent on record has occurred in the order of the Tribunal. 1.2. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has also agreed that the assessee had applied for final

Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 927/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Agarwal CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

pending verification on pretext of which the rectification order u/s.154 has been passed and the A.O. has not pointed out any mistake apparent from record. 8.2.6 As regards the merits of the issue in hand, the appellant had clearly stated that it had made provision for the above expenses ... provided by the 5 ITO, (EXEMPTION), WARD –JAIPUR VS RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION appellant to arrive at such conclusion of it being a mistake apparent from record. The appellant has given a ledger account for the above provision of expenses of Rs.2,30,26,345/- The appellant has also provided

Mr Nagarajan Chandrashekhar, Mumbai vs. International Tax Ward-2(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4100/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Modi, CA (Virtually appear)

Section 10(10)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 10(10) of the Act. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee filed a petition before the AO for rectifying the mistake apparent on record in this regard and the same is rejected by the AO. The ld. AR argued that as per the CBDT Circular

Vaibhav Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/JPR/2024[AY2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Mantri, C.AFor Respondent: Shr. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT a

Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 90

order u/s 143(1)(a) dated 26. 10.2022. The assessee filed an application for rectification u/s 154 as non-allowance of relief was mistake apparent on record. The CPC has not considered the facts of the case and disallowed the whole relief being claimed by the assessee and charged ... order u/s 143(1)(a) dated 26.10.2022. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an application for rectification u/s 154 as non-allowance of relief was mistake apparent on record. The CPC again did not considered the same and disallowed the whole relief being claimed by the appellant and charged the full

Indian Chronicle Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal ofthe assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1275/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Indian Chronicle Ltd. बनाम/ Ito Gujarat Samacharbhavan, Ward4(3), Ahmedabad Vs. Khanpur,Ahmedabad - 380001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci0793H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondentby: Date Of Hearing 28/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)

ld.counsel for the assessee that the non-adjudication of ground No.1 raised by the assessee treating it as general in nature is a mistake apparent on record in the order passed. The bare reading of the contents of the ground reveal that the assessee vide the said ground had raised ... pointed out to us by the Ld.DR. Therefore, treating the said ground No.1 as general in nature is, we hold, a mistake apparent from record in the order of the ITAT. Accordingly, we recall the impugned order of the ITAT for adjudicating the ground no.1 raised by the assessee

Ashok Sharma, Kota vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2 - Kota, Kota

ITA 359/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Kabra (C.A.) (V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)

disallowance of Material Consumed Exps. 2 Notice for rectification u/s 154 (ACIT/Cir-2/KTA/2017- 18/1133) Mr. Ajitesh Kumar Omission to make addition as a mistake apparent on record of 8 lakhs. No order passed. 3 Order u/s 147 (D. & C. No. 36/77) Mr. Shankar Lal Verma Opined that the assessee ... should be under major headings: 1.1) Formation of opinion while passing order u/s 143(3) 1.2) Opinion while issuing Notice for rectification of mistake apparent on record u/s 154 dated 21/11/2017 1.3) Opinion during issuance of notice u/s 148 and reassessment proceedings u/s 147 Submissions on the above headings

Advance India Projects Limited, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT Central Delhi-1, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2527/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekadvance India Projects Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, Aipl Business Club, Fifth Floor, Central Delhi 1, Golf Course Extension Road, Sector 62, Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aacca9859J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pcit), Delhi-1 (Hereinafter Referred To 'Ld. Pcit) Dated 28.03.2024 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2018–19 On 30.11.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,85,19,440/–. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 143(3A) & 143(3B) On 09.04.2021 At An Income Of Rs.14,85,39,600/–.

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

inclined to set aside the order passed under section 263 of the Act and ld. PCIT has not brought on record any mistake apparent on record or the action of the assessing officer is against the law. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced

Mindsprint Digital (India) Private Limited, Chennai vs. Assistant Director of Income-Tax, Centralized Processing Center, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1337/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, Adv

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 246A

dismissing the CIT(A) appeal on the grounds that the addition of the GST refund received by the Appellant is not a mistake apparent on record and hence would be outside the purview of the rectification order. 5. The learned CIT(A) had erred in law by failing to adjudicate ... proposed addition of Rs 15,73,86,696/- was determined as result of error in processing the return by the CPC and mistakes apparent from records which requires rectification u/s 154 of the Act, the assessee Company e- filed a rectification application and requested seeking reprocessing the ITR M/s.Mindsprint Digital

Pvr Inox Limited, Maharashtra vs. DCIT Central Circle, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee before us also becomes infructuous

ITA 1872/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicialmember Pvr Inox Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 7Th Floor, Lotus Grandeur Building, New Delhi. Veera Desai Road, Opp. Gundecha Symphony, Andheri Mumbai Azad Nagar, S.O. (Mumbai) Mumbai – 400 053 (Maharashtra). (Pan: Aaacp4526D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2024 Date Of Order : 14.11.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 23.02.2024 For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That The Appeal

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajinder Kaur, CIT DR

Section 143Section 154Section 43B

prayed that the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) is not proper. Considering the facts on record, he submitted that the mistake apparent on record already rectified by the CPC and there is no grievance to the assessee. Now ld. CIT (A) has passed this order, therefore, assessee found ... submissions and material placed on record. We observed that the grievance of the assessee was already addressed by the CPC by rectifying the mistake apparent on record u/s 154 of the Act. Against the original intimation order u/s 143 (1) of the Act, assessee has preferred an appeal before

Abha Bansal, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-2`, Faridabad

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

ITA 841/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234Section 234ASection 44A

adverse inference while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. Even though assessee has filed rectification application for the abovesaid mistake apparent on record u/s 154 of the Act, however no such rectification order was passed. Vide letter-cum-order-cum- 3 communication dated 13.02.2020, the assessee

Delta Air Lines, Inc, Mumbai vs. ACIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 235/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshdri / Ms. Amulya

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234B

airlines. The assessee had pleaded that the said linkage was never asked for by the revenue and hence such a finding was a mistake apparent on record. The MA was rejected stating that the contention of the assessee is not a mistake apparent on record. Therefore the ld AR submitted