← 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

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

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

ITA 111/PAT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Vs. Unwas Branch Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Robhabhua Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Fatehpur Mor Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

554/Pat/2022 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, has relied upon

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

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

ITA 110/PAT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Vs. Unwas Branch Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Robhabhua Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Fatehpur Mor Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

554/Pat/2022 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, has relied upon

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

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

ITA 109/PAT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Vs. Unwas Branch Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Robhabhua Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Fatehpur Mor Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

554/Pat/2022 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, has relied upon

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

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

ITA 108/PAT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Vs. Unwas Branch Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Robhabhua Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Fatehpur Mor Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

554/Pat/2022 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, has relied upon

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

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

ITA 107/PAT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Vs. Unwas Branch Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Robhabhua Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Fatehpur Mor Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

554/Pat/2022 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, has relied upon

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

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

ITA 106/PAT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Vs. Unwas Branch Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Robhabhua Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Fatehpur Mor Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

554/Pat/2022 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, has relied upon

Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Azimabad Banch vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 105/PAT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Vs. Unwas Branch Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Robhabhua Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Fatehpur Mor Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

554/Pat/2022 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, has relied upon

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

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

ITA 104/PAT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Vs. Unwas Branch Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Robhabhua Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Fatehpur Mor Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

554/Pat/2022 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, has relied upon

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

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

ITA 103/PAT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Vs. Unwas Branch Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Robhabhua Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Fatehpur Mor Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

554/Pat/2022 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, has relied upon

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

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

ITA 102/PAT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Vs. Unwas Branch Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Robhabhua Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Fatehpur Mor Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

554/Pat/2022 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, has relied upon

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

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

ITA 101/PAT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Vs. Unwas Branch Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Robhabhua Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Fatehpur Mor Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

554/Pat/2022 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, has relied upon

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

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

ITA 100/PAT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Vs. Unwas Branch Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Robhabhua Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank, Acit, Cpc,Tds, Fatehpur Mor Branch Vs. Ghaziabad. Pan-Aaead5069K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

554/Pat/2022 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, has relied upon

Sh. Manjeet Singh, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1391/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 145ASection 2Section 23(1)Section 28Section 4Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

case of CIT Vs. Bir Singh (HUF) in ITA No.209 of 2004, etc. held that in the light of the above decisions, the mistake apparent on record had occurred in his order while allowing the appeal of the assessees while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Sh. Puneet Singh, Karnal vs. ACIT, Karnal

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 1389/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Aditya Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. K. K. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 145ASection 2Section 23(1)Section 28Section 4Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

case of CIT Vs. Bir Singh (HUF) in ITA No.209 of 2004, etc. held that in the light of the above decisions, the mistake apparent on record had occurred in his order while allowing the appeal of the assessees while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Prime Health Care Products, Daman vs. ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 506/SRT/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.506/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prime Health Care Products, Vs. The Dcit, Vapi Circle, Plot No.198 To 207, Dabhel Indl. Co. Vapi. Society Ltd., Village. Dabhel, Daman, Daman-396210. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfp6232C

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80I

Assessee is entitled for even if the same is missed out by it. If the relief is not given, the same is a mistake apparent on record and further when the same is pointed out to the AO, by the Assessee by way of a rectification application, it is nothing ... mistake apparent on record. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee missed the deadline for filing regular appeal and recourse of rectification was taken to bring the issue to back to life for further legal remedy or that the Assessee cannot raise the issue which could

Ananya Ajay Mittal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC6 (4), Mumbai

ITA 6949/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6949/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6950/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 576/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 2Section 6(1)(b)Section 6(1)(c)

decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suresh Nanda (supra), non consideration of High Court decision is mistake apparent on record and prayed that the above said mistake be rectified. 5. After considering the submissions, we observe that the decision relied

Itek Packz, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 995/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

Kutch Stock Exchange case 219 CTR (SC) 90 has held that non- consideration of the decision of the jurisdictional high court/Supreme Court constitutes mistake apparent from record and is rectifiable within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. In Honda Siel Power Products ... Supreme Court, says that its ruling will only operate prospectively. 5.8 In the light of the law as explained above, there is a mistake apparent on record in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt.Ltd. (supra) though rendered subsequent

Mass Fab Technologies, Bangalore vs. CIT(Appeals), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by different assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1079/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 244ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)

Kutch Stock Exchange case 219 CTR (SC) 90 has held that non- consideration of the decision of the jurisdictional high court/Supreme Court constitutes mistake apparent from record and is rectifiable within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. In Honda Siel Power Products ... Supreme Court, says that its ruling will only operate prospectively. 5.8 In the light of the law as explained above, there is a mistake apparent on record in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt.Ltd. (supra) though rendered subsequent

Anugraha Fashion Mill Private Limited, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal in I

ITA 883/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.883 & 865/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 M/S. Anugraha Fashion Mill Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 15, Suriyan Nagar, Income Tax, Abt Rod New Extn., Karuvampalayam, Centralized Processing Centre, Tirupur 641 604. Bangalore 650 500. [Pan:Aahca3311Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore Dated 31.08.2020 & 28.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. I.T.A. No. 883/Chny/2020 2. The Appellate Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] Dated 31.08.2020 Has Not Been Digitally Signed & Thereby There Was A Mistake Apparent On Record. The Above

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80I

under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] dated 31.08.2020 has not been digitally signed and thereby there was a mistake apparent on record. The above 2 I.T.A. Nos.883 & 865/Chny/20 mistake was suo moto rectified by the ld. CIT(A) vide order under section

Anugraha Fashion Mill Private Limited, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal in I

ITA 865/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.883 & 865/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 M/S. Anugraha Fashion Mill Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 15, Suriyan Nagar, Income Tax, Abt Rod New Extn., Karuvampalayam, Centralized Processing Centre, Tirupur 641 604. Bangalore 650 500. [Pan:Aahca3311Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore Dated 31.08.2020 & 28.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. I.T.A. No. 883/Chny/2020 2. The Appellate Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] Dated 31.08.2020 Has Not Been Digitally Signed & Thereby There Was A Mistake Apparent On Record. The Above

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80I

under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] dated 31.08.2020 has not been digitally signed and thereby there was a mistake apparent on record. The above 2 I.T.A. Nos.883 & 865/Chny/20 mistake was suo moto rectified by the ld. CIT(A) vide order under section