← 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

Rocksalt Interactive Games Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S. Rocksalt Interactive Income Tax Officer, Vs. Games Pvt. Ltd., Ward 3(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan Aafcr3033A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Respondent By : Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Laliet Kumar, J.M. : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dt.30.03.2020 Of The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit-3, Hyderabad Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 263Section 72Section 73Section 73ASection 74Section 74ASection 80

rectified in AY 2006-07 wherein the brought forward loss has only been set off. Therefore, there being no mistake apparent on record in the assessment order passed for the impugned AY, exercise of power u/s 154 of the Act is invalid. Accordingly, there being no infirmity in the order

M/S. Karnataka Hitech Agro Enterprises, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 717/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ramaraju N., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155Section 263Section 68

with respect to whether the partner’s remuneration is allowable are not but with respect to whether the issue is a mistake apparent on record is debatable to rectify u/s.154. So it cannot be held as a basis for contending that section 263 is not applicable. It is submitted

Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 700/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, V.P. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella V.P.Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 154

return u/s 139(1) of the Act on 29.11.2013, i.e., Rs.8,23,30,160 without discussing anything in his order, which is a mistake apparent from record, which could be rectified, but the A.O. rejected the claim of the assessee. The learned AR further submitted that ... Therefore, not 21 ITA Nos.698-700/Bang/2022. M/s.Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited. granting credit as per MAT provisions by the revenue authorities is a mistake apparent from record. 9. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the lower authorities were

Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 699/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, V.P. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella V.P.Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 154

return u/s 139(1) of the Act on 29.11.2013, i.e., Rs.8,23,30,160 without discussing anything in his order, which is a mistake apparent from record, which could be rectified, but the A.O. rejected the claim of the assessee. The learned AR further submitted that ... Therefore, not 21 ITA Nos.698-700/Bang/2022. M/s.Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited. granting credit as per MAT provisions by the revenue authorities is a mistake apparent from record. 9. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the lower authorities were

Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 698/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, V.P. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Gudimella V.P.Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 154

return u/s 139(1) of the Act on 29.11.2013, i.e., Rs.8,23,30,160 without discussing anything in his order, which is a mistake apparent from record, which could be rectified, but the A.O. rejected the claim of the assessee. The learned AR further submitted that ... Therefore, not 21 ITA Nos.698-700/Bang/2022. M/s.Concorde Housing Corporation Private Limited. granting credit as per MAT provisions by the revenue authorities is a mistake apparent from record. 9. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the lower authorities were

DCIT- CC- 2(1), Mumbai vs. Mirah Dekor Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 623/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 234ASection 234B

relevant to Assessment year 2013-2014 and therefore during the course of personal hearing you were kind enough to agree to rectify such mistake apparent from record. 3. However you have also brought to our notice that there were such purchases from M/s.Servesh Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. During the year relevant ... Sales Rs.7,54,32,365/- A.O. Para 3.1 Page-2 CIT(A) Para- 11 Page-25 to 27 A) No mistake much less mistake apparent from record to make addition at Rs.7,54,32,365/-. Reliance on: i) 82 ITR 50 (SC) T.S. Balram, ITO vs. Volkart Brothers

Shramik Mahila Mandal, Mumbai vs. Ld Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Thane

ITA 447/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R
Section 10Section 10(23)(iiiad)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

view that when addition has been made on non sustainable grounds by ignoring the contention of the assessee the same is certainly a mistake apparent on record and the issue was required to be decided by verifying the facts pleaded by the assessee. Furthermore, another contention of the assessee that ... section 10(23C)(iiiad) could have been accepted during the proceedings under section 154 of the Act as the same is also a mistake apparent on record and the addition made and demand has been raised on the basis of mechanical process carried out by the AO/CPC Bangalore

M/S. Budget Impex, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 1646/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, M/S. Eclerx Services Ltd. Circle 2(1)(1), (Successor Of M/S. Agilyst Room No.561, 5Th Floor, Consulting Pvt. Ltd.), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Sonawala Building, M.K. Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 009 Pan: Aaace79321 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 254(2)

Income Tax Act, corrigendum to the order dated 29.07.2022 in ITA No.1614/M/2021 for A.Y. 2015-16 qua the clerical errors, which are mistakes apparent on record, is hereby issued as under: I. In para 4 at page 3 of the order (supra) word “Revenue” be read in place of “assessee ... Successor of M/s. Agilyst Consulting Pvt. Ltd.) III. In para 11 at page 6 of the order (supra) clerical error being a mistake apparent on record is rectified to the effect that “so ground No.1 is determined against the Revenue”. Corrigendum is accordingly issued to be integral part of order

M/S. Birla Edutech Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(18)Section 3Section 79

justified and grossly erred in disallowing the loss by invoking provisions of section 79 of the Act being debatable issue as mistake apparent from record and passing the order u/s 154 of the Act. 4. Without prejudice to above: Ld. CIT(A) and AO was not justified and grossly erred ... jurisdiction of AO to have invoked the impugned action u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter (“the Act”) (Rectification of mistake apparent on record). The assessee has raised this ground against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO passed

The Bhatia General Hospital, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (OSD)(TDS) 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7205/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri R. V. Shah/Ms. Dhara BadaniFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 194JSection 201

contention of the assessee that Ground No. 1, 1.1 and 1.2 of the appeal have not been adjudicated which constitutes a mistake apparent on record. Accordingly, the appeal (ITA No. 7202/Mum/2017) is restored for the limited purpose of adjudication of Ground no. 1, 1.1 and 1.2 of the appeal

The Bhatia General Hospital, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (OSD)(TDS) 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7203/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri R. V. Shah/Ms. Dhara BadaniFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 194JSection 201

contention of the assessee that Ground No. 1, 1.1 and 1.2 of the appeal have not been adjudicated which constitutes a mistake apparent on record. Accordingly, the appeal (ITA No. 7202/Mum/2017) is restored for the limited purpose of adjudication of Ground no. 1, 1.1 and 1.2 of the appeal

The Bhatia General Hospital, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (OSD)(TDS) 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7202/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri R. V. Shah/Ms. Dhara BadaniFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 194JSection 201

contention of the assessee that Ground No. 1, 1.1 and 1.2 of the appeal have not been adjudicated which constitutes a mistake apparent on record. Accordingly, the appeal (ITA No. 7202/Mum/2017) is restored for the limited purpose of adjudication of Ground no. 1, 1.1 and 1.2 of the appeal

Arun Ramkrishna Patil, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm.of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Thane

ITA 1320/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 154

which credit needs to be given to the assessee on the face of the fact that it was mistake apparent on record. He has filed application for additional evidence in this regard to bring on record for income tax return filed for A.Y. 2011-12 along with computation of income

Grasim Industries Ltd.(As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 216/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)

merits but it is a case in which not declining the interest under s. 244A for this period has been treated as a mistake apparent on record, which, by implication, means that it is "an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn ... 244A could be declined for this period on merits, not declining the interest under s. 244A could not be treated as a mistake apparent on record within the inherently limited scope of s. 154. In any event, when a question arises as to the period for which such interest under

Grasim Industries Ltd.(As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC -1(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 215/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)

merits but it is a case in which not declining the interest under s. 244A for this period has been treated as a mistake apparent on record, which, by implication, means that it is "an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn ... 244A could be declined for this period on merits, not declining the interest under s. 244A could not be treated as a mistake apparent on record within the inherently limited scope of s. 154. In any event, when a question arises as to the period for which such interest under

Gmr Hyderabad International Airport Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result ground II is allowed

ITA 524/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayana, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

first appellate authority. The CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee by stating that the assessment order dated 30.03.2021, suffered from mistake apparent on record and hence the order passed u/s 154 of the I.T.Act is justified on facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Aggrieved by the order

Michael Page International Recruitment P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 1323/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 144C(12)Section 144C(5)

provisions, which constitutes a special scheme for certain categories of taxpayers. Application of time limits under section 154 within which rectification of mistakes apparent on record can be carried out, on the facts of this case, will be contrary to the scheme of taxation envisaged under the scheme ... different in scope and application. When a higher forum like this Tribunal can be permitted six months‟ time for the rectification of the mistakes apparent on record, there should be no good reason that similar time for rectification of mistake apparent on record is not allowed to the Dispute Resolution

Mwh India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1891/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Prashant Maharishiआअसं. 1891/मुं/2014 ("न. व. 2009-10 ) Mwh India Pvt. Ltd. 168, Udyog Bhavan, Sonawala Road, Goregaon(E) Mumbai 400 063. Pan: Aaaca-4613-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 9(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jehangir D.Mistri With Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Niraj Sheth ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 03/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 31/01/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C (13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’]

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D.Mistri with Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 50BSection 92C

however, 6 while passing final assessment order the adjustment in respect of the above two issues remain to be added. It is a mistake apparent on record , therefore, direction may be given to the Assessing Officer to give effect to the adjustment in respect of the TP issues stated above

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. Manyata Promoters Private Limited (Erstwhile Embassy Office Parks Private Limited ), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, while the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 573/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 154Section 232

have appreciated that disallowance not being made in the 115JB computation makes it a computational mistake which is well within the meaning of 'Mistake apparent from record' under section 154 of IT Act. 4. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11 erred in relying on the jurisdictional High ... issue in the assessment order. So on the basis of material available on records it cannot be said that there was a mistake apparent from record. Further, if on an issue two different opinions are possible, the same cannot be subject of rectification. So the action

M/S. Manyata Promoters Private Limited (Erstwhile Embassy Office Parks Private Limited Since Merged With Manyata Promoters Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)- Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, while the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 548/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 154Section 232

have appreciated that disallowance not being made in the 115JB computation makes it a computational mistake which is well within the meaning of 'Mistake apparent from record' under section 154 of IT Act. 4. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11 erred in relying on the jurisdictional High ... issue in the assessment order. So on the basis of material available on records it cannot be said that there was a mistake apparent from record. Further, if on an issue two different opinions are possible, the same cannot be subject of rectification. So the action