“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

Shri R V Shah Charitable Trust, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.DIT, CPC, Bengaluru Current Jurisdiction the ITO, Exemp., Bhavnagar

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

ITA 257/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2022-23 Shri R V Shah Charitable Trust The Dy. Director Of Income C/O. Madhu Silica Pvt.Ltd. Vs Tax, Cpc 147, Gidc, Vartej Bengaluru Bhavnagar 364 060 (Current Jao : Ito (Exempt), Gujarat Bhavnagar Pan: Aaets 0593 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. S. Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Narendra Prasad Sinha: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 19/01/2024 Passed By The Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai [“Jcit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust & Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2022-23 On 17/10/2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,48,175/-. The Said Return Was Processed By Cpc Bengaluru U/S.143(1) Of The Act On 03/03/2023 & Income Was Determined At Rs.13,64,912/-. This Was Due To Denial Of Exemption U/S.10(23C) Of The Act By The Cpc. The Assessee Had Filed An

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri C. S. Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(iv)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 246ASection 250

spite of the fact that the issue before both the lower authorities was debatable and not any mistake apparent on record or information. Hence, both the lower authorities erred in exceeding the jurisdiction in making an adjustment

Kanta, Bhiwani vs. ITO Ward-1, Bhiwani

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2213/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2010-11 Smt. Kanta Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Kanta Brick Kiln Co., Ward-1, Vpo Kayla Bhiwani, Bhiwani Haryana – 127021 (Pan: Ceppk1186J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 68

confirming the order under section 154 of the Act, ignoring the fact that the issue in question is not a mistake apparent from record, hence, not rectifiable under section 154 of the Act. (ii) That the Assessing Officer has attempted to review his own order passed under section ... That an issue which can be resolved through a long drawn process cannot be said to be a mistake apparent from record. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition

The Tiruvannamalai District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Tiruvannamalai vs. ACIT, Circle-I, Vellore

ITA 3154/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA.G (Accountant Member)

found that the date of filing of return of income was mentioned as 27.09.2013 only. Hence, there is no mistake apparent on record from the order of Tribunal dated 05.03.2014 which we can rectify. It is ordered accordingly. (महावीर "सह ) (मंजुनाथा. जी) (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANJUNATHA.G) उपा"य" /VICE PRESIDENT लेखा

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3695/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3695/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) National Stock Exchange Of बिधम/ Dcit-Circle-7(1)(1) India Room No.126, 1St Floor, Vs. Exchange Plaza, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra Road, Churchgate, East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn1797L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shailesh S. Shah Shri Vijay Bhatt Revenue By: Shri S. Srinivasu (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 17.08.2023 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Passed U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Wherein He Increased The Book Profit U/S 115Jb Of The Act By Making An Adjustment Of Rs.7,61,52,00,000/- [Statutory Contribution Towards Core Settlement Guarantee Fund (Core Sgf)] By Holding That Such A Contribution To Core Sgf Is To Meet An Unascertained Liability.

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu (DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 37(1)

original assessment had omitted to add the same in the book profit which omission (in the original assessment) is a mistake apparent from record. Therefore, exercising his power u/s 154 of the 3 A.Y. 2016-17 National Stock Exchange of India Act, he issued notice on 15.01.2019 and after taking ... assessee is before us. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. According to the Ld. AR, there was no mistake apparent on record for AO to invoke jurisdiction u/s 154 of the Act. Therefore, the action of the AO for making an adjustment u/s 115JB

Pooja Hardware Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 13 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3712/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(ii)

have 90 days was not considered and ay this i 90 days was not considered and ay this is mistake apparent on s mistake apparent on record and the issue of extension of limitation period considered record and the issue of extension of limitation period considered record and the issue ... following th aspect of achieving the same and not following the directions of e directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court is clearly mistake apparent on record Hon'ble Supreme Court is clearly mistake apparent on record Hon'ble Supreme Court is clearly mistake apparent on record and we deem

Rajat Dhara, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1914/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1914/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rajat Dhara............................................................…………………….……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Abqpd1200L] Vs. Dcit (I.T), Circle-2(1), Kolkata...…….…..….........…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ankur Goyal, Jcit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 19, 2024 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.06.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Earlier Decided By The Order Of The Tribunal Dated March 02, 2022, However, The Revenue Moved An M.A No.35/Kol/2022 Stating Therein That A Mistake Apparent On Record Has Occurred In The Order Of The Tribunal Dated 02.03.2022. Therefore, Vide Order Dated 15.12.2023 Passed In M.A No.35/Kol/2022, The Final Order Dated 02.03.2022 Passed In Ita No.1914/Kol/2019 Was Recalled. The Appeal Has Been Heard Afresh. 3. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 5Section 5(1)Section 90

earlier decided by the order of the Tribunal dated March 02, 2022, however, the revenue moved an M.A No.35/Kol/2022 stating therein that a mistake apparent on record has occurred in the order of the Tribunal dated 02.03.2022. Therefore, vide order dated 15.12.2023 passed in M.A No.35/Kol/2022, the final order dated

Shree Goverdhan Nathji Haveli Trust, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions-Ward-3, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1088/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Shree Goverdhan The Income Tax Nathji Haveli Trust, Officer, No. 15, Nehrunagar, Exemptions, Seshadripuram, Ward – 3, Bangalore – 560 020. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aacts7617M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, Advocate

Section 11

have provided an opportunity of being heard before making any addition, the learned AO ignored the fact that the appellant had rectified the mistake apparent on record by e-filing the Audit Report in Form 10B and hence the addition made deserves to be deleted in full. 7. The learned

Town Vividoddesha Sahakari Bhandara Niyamitha, Tumkuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Tumkur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1089/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 80P

this amounts to misleading the appellate authority. Lastly the appellant says that that disallowance of 80P is a debatable issue, and not a mistake apparent from records. The said letter dated 22.07.2021 informs the appellant of the intention of the AO to rectify the assessment order in view ... before the CIT(A), etc. The ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A) and submitted that the there is no mistake apparent on record warranting interference u/s. 154 of the Act. It is submitted that the issue involved is highly debatable and not amenable to rectification

M/S. Tso Jhe Khangsar Charity Hospital Society, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward-1, Mysuru

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

ITA 912/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, S

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 154

been correctly computed. Hence, the request made the assessee for rectification for allowing exemption. It cannot be considered as there is no mistake apparent on record." 5.2 As per the A.O. not claiming exemption u/s 11 is not mistake apparent from record on the other hand the appellant admitted ... original return there is a no order before the A.O. which was required rectification u/s 154. The rectification is only to rectify the mistake apparent from record in case of any order passed as mentioned in the said section. As discussed in this case there is no order which requires

Strides Pharma Science Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15 (3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1558/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.1558 /मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2012-13) Strides Pharma Science Limited [Formerly Known As Strides Arcolab Limited/ Strides Shasun Limited] 201, Devavrata, Sector -17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan: Aadcs-8104-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle – 15(3)(2), Mumbai Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate With Shri Ninand Patade "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anoop Hiwase & Dr.Samuel Pitta सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/10/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/01/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 24/01/2019, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. This Appeal Emanates From The Proceedings U/S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate with Shri Ninand PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase &

Section 154

relief claimed in petition u/s. 154 before the Assessing Officer was premature and does not fall within the meaning of rectification of the mistake apparent on record. 4. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined orders of authorities below. The short issue before

A.Ammaji, Visakhapatnam vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, MA filed assessee is allowed and the appeals of

ITA 98/VIZ/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 68Section 69C

therefore the question of application of the provisions of section 69C also does not arise. Hence, the Ld. AR submitted there is a mistake apparent on record from the order of the Tribunal while giving 3 conclusion with regard to Ground No.3 which is contradicting the finding of the Tribunal ... order as the Tribunal deems fit. 3. After hearing the Ld. AR and the Ld. DR, we find that there is a mistake apparent on record while adjudicating the Ground No.3 of the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 97/Viz/2020 and 98/Viz/2020. Since the mistake has crept in the Tribunal

A Harshita, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Visakhapatnam

In the result, MA filed assessee is allowed and the appeals of

ITA 97/VIZ/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 68Section 69C

Hasumatiben Jagdishbhai Patel, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 322/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.322/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hasumatiben Jagdishbhai Principal Commissioner Of Patel Income-Tax, Valsad, 301, Vs 80 Shree Ram Estate, Opp. 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Pandesara Petrol Pump Office, Palak Arcade, Shanti Bhedwad, Surat-394220 Nagar, Tithal Road, Pan : Aaopp 1698 K Valsad-396001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

processing fees, is no way directly or indirectly connected with any of the aforesaid “limited scrutiny” issue, which cannot be considered as a mistake apparent on record and no addition is called by disallowing the legitimate expenses of Rs.3.68 lakh on account of r loan processing fees during the year

Lintas Employees Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Centralized Processing Centre, Incometax Department, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2587/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Lintas Employees Education Centralised Processing Trust Centre, 13Th Floor, Express Towers, Vs. Income Tax Department Nariman Point, Bengaluru-560500 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatl0331P

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR

Section 10(15)Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 251(1)(a)

Intimation Order u/s 143(1), and that the same should have been a matter of scrutiny proceedings and therefore clearly it is a mistake apparent on record. GROUND NO. 2: DIVIDEND INCOME of Rs. 19,68,793/- 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in setting aside the Assessment Order with

The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Junagadh vs. M/S. Gujarat Sidhee Cement Ltd., Veraval

ITA 370/RJT/2014[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot10 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Through Web-Based Video Conferencing Platform) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S. Gujarat Sidhee Cement Ltd., The Acit, Sidhigram, Veraval Kodinar Road, Circle-1, Veraval Junagadh Pan : Aaacg 8057 G अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.11.2023 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) U/S 250(6) Of The Act Dated 27.03.2014 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Earlier, The Appeal Was Adjudicated By The Itat Vide Its Order Dated 11.09.2019; But Subsequently On A Miscellaneous Application Filed By The Revenue, The Appeal Was Recalled For Adjudicating Afresh Ground No.4 Raised By The Revenue Vide Order Passed By The Itat In Ma No.33/Rjt/2020 Dated 06.10.2023. The Itat Noted That The Issue Raised In The Said Ground Had Been Adjudicated Following The Decision In Assessee’S Own Case For Ay 2009-10, But Found That There Was No Parity In The Said Two Cases. Accordingly, Noting This Mistake In The Order Of The Itat, The Appeal Was Recalled For Adjudicating Ground No.4 Raised By The Revenue In Its Appeal In No. 370/Rjt/2014 Which Pertained To The Issue Of Disallowance Of Business

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR

Section 250(6)Section 37(1)

assessment year 2009-10 but the finding is not in consonance with the said order dated 25-04-2019. Therefore, there is mistake apparent on record and we are recalling the order dated 11-09-2019 to the extent of the ground of appeal in respect of ITA 370/Rjt/2014 filed

Dhruva Tara Co Operative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed”

ITA 2997/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 2997 & 2998/Mum/2023 (A.Y: 2011-12 & 2017-18) Dhruva Tara Cooperative Vs. Ito, Ward-42(1)(2), Housing Society, Room No. 706, Dhruva Kautilya Bhawan, Shiv Vallabh Road, C-41 To 43, G-Block, Borivali (E), Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400066. Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaad1399L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ajay R. Singh.Ar Respondent By : Shri. G.J. Ninawe. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 154 & U/Sec 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay R. Singh.ARFor Respondent: Shri. G.J. Ninawe. Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

provisions of section 80AC of the Act was applicable from AY 2018-19 onward in regards to section 80P, therefore CPC has committed mistake apparent on record in not granting the deduction u/s 80P(2) clause (d) at the time of processing the return of income under section

Wholery Infrastructure Private Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota, Rajasthan

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

ITA 525/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(9)Section 154Section 154(1)(a)Section 44A

invalid return". Hence the AO rejected the application of the assessee with following narration. ‘’In view of above, since this is not the mistake apparent from record and due to invalid return for the AY 2017-18, the application for rectification u/s 154 filed by the assessee is hereby rejected ... passed the order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 rejecting the application of the appellant and not rectifying the mistake apparent on record is perverse arbitrary and passed in utter disregard to natural justice. 2. That the order passed by the Ld. DCIT, CPC Bangalore dated

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 145/CTK/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.143 To 145/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 To 2014-2015) M/S Pragati Milk Products(P) Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.71/A/1, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur, Cuttack-754021 Pan No. :Aaecp 6353 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.10.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0487/2017-18 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Facts In All The Cases Are Identical. It Was The Submission That There Was Search In The Premises Of The Assessee. As A Consequence Of Search, Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.153A Of The Act. In The Assessment U/S.153A Of The Act, The Assessee Had Been Granted The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib(11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Was The Subject Matter Of Rectification Application On Multiple Occasions & In The Third Round Of Rectification Application The Ao Has Withdrawn The Benefit Of Deduction U/S.80Ib (11A) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The 2

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

order of the Assessing Officer that depreciation was allowed overlooking section 80VVA of the Act. Overlooking of a statutory provision is clearly a mistake apparent on record and on that basis, rectification under section 154 of the Act was clearly admissible. Impermissibility of deduction is not debatable if section 80VVA ... thus issue of notice under section 154 is within the ambit of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, and it is a mistake apparent from record. 20. It is contended that the respondent is not going to adjudicate the merits of the issue. They have intended to rectify

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 144/CTK/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I

M/S. Pragati Milk Product Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for respective assessment years under consideration are allowed

ITA 143/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Abani Kanta Nayak, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 80I