“mistake apparent on record”

Xenok Limited, C/O Ernst and Young LLP Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Mumbai

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 and the details of TDS available in form 26AS. Therefore, there was no mistake apparent on record. It is settled legal position that same income cannot be taxed 4 Assessment Year 2012-2013 twice in the hands of the Assessee, once

Bimbisar Nagar Nisarg Co Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 41(4)(1), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

appealable order under Section 246A of the Act. Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that the intimation order dated 09/11/2022 suffered from mistake apparent on record as the Assessee was not put to notice before issuance of Intimation Order under Section 143(1) of the Act. Further, on merits ... submitted that denial of deduction was contrary to the existing decision of the Tribunal and therefore, Intimation Order, dated 09/11/2022, suffered from mistake apparent on record which was rectifiable in terms of Section 154 of the Act. However, the authorities below failed to appreciate the same. 8. Per contra

Bimbisar Nagar Nisar Co Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41(4)(1), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

appealable order under Section 246A of the Act. Learned Authorized Representative for the Assessee submitted that the intimation order dated 09/11/2022 suffered from mistake apparent on record as the Assessee was not put to notice before issuance of Intimation Order under Section 143(1) of the Act. Further, on merits ... submitted that denial of deduction was contrary to the existing decision of the Tribunal and therefore, Intimation Order, dated 09/11/2022, suffered from mistake apparent on record which was rectifiable in terms of Section 154 of the Act. However, the authorities below failed to appreciate the same. 8. Per contra

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai vs. Foodlink Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Rs.2,58,78,235/- by Rs. 21,81,306/- vide order u/s 154 of the Act dated 26.03.2024 stating that there is a mistake apparent on record while calculating the total cash deposit made by appellant during the demonetization period. The cash deposited by the appellant in specified bank notes

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai vs. Foodlink Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Rs.2,58,78,235/- by Rs. 21,81,306/- vide order u/s 154 of the Act dated 26.03.2024 stating that there is a mistake apparent on record while calculating the total cash deposit made by appellant during the demonetization period. The cash deposited by the appellant in specified bank notes

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax- 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Aakar Bhavan vs. Foodlink Services India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

Rs.2,58,78,235/- by Rs. 21,81,306/- vide order u/s 154 of the Act dated 26.03.2024 stating that there is a mistake apparent on record while calculating the total cash deposit made by appellant during the demonetization period. The cash deposited by the appellant in specified bank notes

Navnath Duryodhan Golande, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Navnath Duryodhan Golande, Ito Ward 1(1) H.No. 1005, Shree Krishna Hsg. Soc. Mohan Plaza, Khadakpada, Kalyan Vs. Subhash Nagar, Kalyan Road, (West)-421301. Bhiwandi-421302. Na Kulkarni (Advocate) Wadal Bldg., Near Dns Bank Manpada Road, Dombivali (East)-421201. Pan No. Aiwpg 8278 J Appellant Respondent

same cannot be stated to Act, as the same cannot be stated to be "mistake be "mistake apparent on record". Therefore, there is apparent on record". Therefore, there is no scope in no scope in interfering with the Order and it is upheld. interfering with the Order

Dreamland Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Vashi vs. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2019-20

again held that any controversial issue cannot be entertained u/s 154 of the Act as the same cannot be stated to be “mistake apparent on record”. Therefore, there is no scope in interfering with the order and it is upheld”. 6. This Court is in concurrence with the observation

Babu U Chokshi, Mumbai vs. AO CPC Bangalore, Bangalore CPC

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

remuneration paid to partners in the rectification proceedings and the CIT-A-NFAC in confirming the same as the same cannot be considered mistake apparent on records as envisaged in section 154 of the Act. 4. The Learned Assessing Officer at the CPC erred in not allowing the TDS credit ... tune of Rs.2,382/- was not provided as appearing in form 26AS. The assessee filed rectification petition on 28.02.2024 to rectify the mistake apparent on record. The CPC in its order also disallowed remuneration and interest paid to the partners to the tune of Rs.3,69,663/- without any intimation