← 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

Mahesh Ladharam Bhadra, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(2)(1), Navi Mumbai

ITA 2319/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.2319/M/2022 in case of Shri Mahesh Ladharam Bhadra shows that there is a mistake apparent on record as to the assessment year to which the appeal in question pertains. Appeal bearing ITA No.2319/M/2022 decided vide order (supra) pertains

Shambhu Dayal Harish Chand Charitable Trust, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Banglore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4000/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Narpat Singh
Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee vide order dated 08/03/2019 in following manners: “5.1.4. Section 154~provides or mistake apparent from record. In the case under1 consideration as noted above, there is nothing on record i.e., in the income tax return or even the audit report in Form ... Harish Chand Ch. Trust correct his mistake by invoking Section 154 of the Act and the said provision is meant for correcting the mistake apparent on record. Therefore sought for dismissal of the appeal. 7. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record and gave

M/S. Grid Corporation of Orissa Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT-(TDS), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 323/CTK/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2009-2010 2010 Grid Corporation Of Orissa Grid Corporation Of Orissa Vs. Acit (Tds), Acit (Tds), Ltd., Ltd., Gridco Gridco House, House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Janapath, Bhubaneswar. Janapath, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain/P.Venugopal Rao /P.Venugopal Rao, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/0 /02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, 1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 12.7.2019 In Appeal No. In Appeal No.0035/17-18 For The Assessment Year The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. S/Shri Ved Jain & P.Venugopal Rao, S/Shri Ved Jain & P.Venugopal Rao, Ld Ar Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain/P.Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)

Court in the case of CIT vs. Steel Strips Ltd. (11 taxmann.com 361) has held that overlooking of statutory provision is clearly a mistake apparent on record, and on that basis, rectification under section 154 is clearly admissible. In said case, assessment of the assessee company for the assessment year ... appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that rectification did not relate to a 'mistake apparent on record' as required for invoking section 154 and was on a debatable issue. The Tribunal also upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). On appeal

Pawan Raj Goyal, Haryana vs. DCIT Central Circle-17, Delhi

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

ITA 575/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Divyansh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Senior DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 154Section 69A

assessment order as well as rectification order u/s 154 have already been reproduced herein above. Section 154 enables the AO to rectify a mistake apparent on record. A reading of the assessment order and the order u/s 154 nowhere speaks of any mistake which has occurred in the assessment order ... which is not actually correct. How these additions of cash have been done u/s 154 claiming that there was a mistake apparent from record in the original order, is not borne out anywhere in the records. Apart from the above, we note that assessee has filed return under presumptive taxation

Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, I R Station Branch vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 528/PAT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Sono Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

passed u/s 154 of the Act as compared to the original order dated 27.04.2015 passed u/s 200A of the Act. In fact, no mistake apparent on record, has been alleged in the said order by the assessee itself in its correction statement/request. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, though

Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, I R Station Branch vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 527/PAT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Sono Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

passed u/s 154 of the Act as compared to the original order dated 27.04.2015 passed u/s 200A of the Act. In fact, no mistake apparent on record, has been alleged in the said order by the assessee itself in its correction statement/request. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, though

Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Belaganj Branch vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 526/PAT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Sono Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

passed u/s 154 of the Act as compared to the original order dated 27.04.2015 passed u/s 200A of the Act. In fact, no mistake apparent on record, has been alleged in the said order by the assessee itself in its correction statement/request. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, though

Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Belaganj Branch vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 525/PAT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Sono Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

passed u/s 154 of the Act as compared to the original order dated 27.04.2015 passed u/s 200A of the Act. In fact, no mistake apparent on record, has been alleged in the said order by the assessee itself in its correction statement/request. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, though

Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Belaganj Branch vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 524/PAT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Sono Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

passed u/s 154 of the Act as compared to the original order dated 27.04.2015 passed u/s 200A of the Act. In fact, no mistake apparent on record, has been alleged in the said order by the assessee itself in its correction statement/request. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, though

Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Belaganj Branch vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 523/PAT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Sono Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

passed u/s 154 of the Act as compared to the original order dated 27.04.2015 passed u/s 200A of the Act. In fact, no mistake apparent on record, has been alleged in the said order by the assessee itself in its correction statement/request. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, though

Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Belaganj Branch vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 522/PAT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Sono Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

passed u/s 154 of the Act as compared to the original order dated 27.04.2015 passed u/s 200A of the Act. In fact, no mistake apparent on record, has been alleged in the said order by the assessee itself in its correction statement/request. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, though

Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Belaganj Branch vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 521/PAT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Sono Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

passed u/s 154 of the Act as compared to the original order dated 27.04.2015 passed u/s 200A of the Act. In fact, no mistake apparent on record, has been alleged in the said order by the assessee itself in its correction statement/request. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, though

Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Belaganj Branch vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 520/PAT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Sono Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

passed u/s 154 of the Act as compared to the original order dated 27.04.2015 passed u/s 200A of the Act. In fact, no mistake apparent on record, has been alleged in the said order by the assessee itself in its correction statement/request. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, though

Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Belaganj Branch vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 519/PAT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Sono Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

passed u/s 154 of the Act as compared to the original order dated 27.04.2015 passed u/s 200A of the Act. In fact, no mistake apparent on record, has been alleged in the said order by the assessee itself in its correction statement/request. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, though

Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Anti Branch vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 518/PAT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Sono Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

passed u/s 154 of the Act as compared to the original order dated 27.04.2015 passed u/s 200A of the Act. In fact, no mistake apparent on record, has been alleged in the said order by the assessee itself in its correction statement/request. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, though

Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Anti Branch vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 517/PAT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Sono Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

passed u/s 154 of the Act as compared to the original order dated 27.04.2015 passed u/s 200A of the Act. In fact, no mistake apparent on record, has been alleged in the said order by the assessee itself in its correction statement/request. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, though

Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Anti Branch vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 516/PAT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Sono Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

passed u/s 154 of the Act as compared to the original order dated 27.04.2015 passed u/s 200A of the Act. In fact, no mistake apparent on record, has been alleged in the said order by the assessee itself in its correction statement/request. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, though

Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Anti Branch vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 515/PAT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Sono Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

passed u/s 154 of the Act as compared to the original order dated 27.04.2015 passed u/s 200A of the Act. In fact, no mistake apparent on record, has been alleged in the said order by the assessee itself in its correction statement/request. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, though

Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Anti Branch vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 514/PAT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Sono Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

passed u/s 154 of the Act as compared to the original order dated 27.04.2015 passed u/s 200A of the Act. In fact, no mistake apparent on record, has been alleged in the said order by the assessee itself in its correction statement/request. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, though

Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Anti Branch vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 513/PAT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Sono Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

passed u/s 154 of the Act as compared to the original order dated 27.04.2015 passed u/s 200A of the Act. In fact, no mistake apparent on record, has been alleged in the said order by the assessee itself in its correction statement/request. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, though