“rectification u/s 154”

Rectification & RevisionSection 154Section 154426 judgments

The decision most relied on for rectification u/s 154 is Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. MallikarjunBhavanappa Tirumale (1 SCR 890), cited in 18 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on rectification u/s 154

Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. MallikarjunBhavanappa Tirumale

1 SCR 890 · 1960 · Reported

citing judgments

An error is not considered 'apparent from the record' for rectification purposes if it requires a lengthy process of reasoning or involves debatable points where multiple opinions are possible. A decision on a debatable point of law does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record.

Judgments citing rectification u/s 154

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result the appeal filed assessee for the Asst

ITA 1059/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 May 2025AY 2013-14

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

attempt was made to rebut the contention of the appellant. Applicability of MAT is clearly a debatable issue and is not amenable to rectification u/s 154. I agree with the appellant on this count. Moreover the reason ascribed for invoking 115JB is also not enough. These grounds are therefore decided ... ACIT Vs. National Dairy Development Baord Page No 5 the applicability of MAT is a debatable issue and is not amenable to rectification u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, and also ignoring the fact that assessee files its Return of Income in the status of Company." 5. Heard rival

National Dairy Development Board, Anand vs. The Dy.CIT., Anand Circle, Anand

In the result the appeal filed assessee for the Asst

ITA 1052/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 May 2025AY 2013-14

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

attempt was made to rebut the contention of the appellant. Applicability of MAT is clearly a debatable issue and is not amenable to rectification u/s 154. I agree with the appellant on this count. Moreover the reason ascribed for invoking 115JB is also not enough. These grounds are therefore decided ... ACIT Vs. National Dairy Development Baord Page No 6 the applicability of MAT is a debatable issue and is not amenable to rectification u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, and also ignoring the fact that assessee files its Return of Income in the status of Company." 5. Heard rival

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rakjot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 81/RJT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara | बनाम Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Vs. Pan: Aampl 3903 F Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

income. Accordingly notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) dated 10.07.2017, was issued and served on the assessee. 7. Thereafter, rectification u/s 154 was carried out, vide order dated 28.02.2018 wherein addition of Rs.589,63,46,541/-, made on account of unexplained credit entries in unallocated gold/silver account of STCSH

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 80/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

Lodhiya H his income. Accordingly notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) dated 10.07.2017, was issued and served on the assessee. 7. Thereafter, rectification u/s 154 was carried out, vide order dated 28.02.2018 wherein addition of Rs.589,63,46,541/-, made on account of unexplained credit entries in unallocated gold/silver

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 79/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

Lodhiya his income. Accordingly notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) dated 10.07.2017, was issued and served on the assessee. 7. Thereafter, rectification u/s 154 was carried out, vide order dated 28.02.2018 wherein addition of Rs.589,63,46,541/-, made on account of unexplained credit entries in unallocated gold/silver account

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rakjot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 78/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The Actit, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 77/RJT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 76/RJT/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

particulars of 3 his income. Accordingly notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) dated 10.07.2017, was issued and served on the assessee. Thereafter, rectification u/s 154 was carried out, vide order dated 28.02.2018 wherein addition of Rs.589,63,46,541/-, made on account of unexplained credit entries in unallocated gold/silver

Jagadguru Panchacharya Education Society, Kolhapur vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Kolhapur

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

ITA 2683/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

regarding application of income for charitable purposes since CPC did not find the audit report in Form 10B. Subsequently, the assessee filed rectification u/s 154 which was also rejected. It was also the contention of Ld. AR that Ld. CIT(A) did not provided proper opportunity of hearing since only

Hemant Kumar Arora, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-62(1), Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 499/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 499/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Hemant Kumar Arora, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-64, Lawrance Road, Indl. Area, Ward-62(1), New Delhi-110035 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adlpa5996M Assessee By: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 154Section 246A(1)Section 68

credits addition u/s 68 to the tune of Rs.38,46,773/-. The assessee thereafter appears to have filed 2 Hemant Kumar Arora his rectification u/s 154 of the Act that his correct taxable income of Rs.48,77,713/- hereinabove had been wrongly taken as Rs.1,16,49,194/- whilst

Mr. Atique Habib Ansari, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(3), Pune

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

ITA 716/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.716/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Atique Habib Ansari, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(3), Pune. Flat No.3, Twin Towers, Wanowrie, Pune- 411040. Pan : Adipa2837L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By : Ms. Shilpa N. C. Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Vadodara For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed By Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Vadodara On The Ground Of Delay, Without Going Into Merits Of The Case. In This Regard, We Find That After Receiving The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The It Act The Counsel Of The Assessee Preferred Rectification U/S 154 Of The It Act. The Same Remain Pending For Quite A Long Time & In Between When

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Ms. Shilpa N. C

Section 143(1)Section 154

this regard, we find that after receiving the intimation u/s 143(1) of the IT Act the counsel of the assessee preferred rectification u/s 154 of the IT Act. The same remain pending for quite a long time & in between when 2 the bank account of the assessee was attached

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 821/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801ASection 80I

justified in invoking the provisions of section 80IA(2A) for withdrawing the claim of the assessee even on merits. The provisions of rectification u/s 154 of the Act, in any case could not have been applied on the facts and the circumstances of the case. Therefore, both on legal grounds

Shri. Omkareshwar Devasthan Charitable Trust., Jalgaon vs. ITO (Exemption) - 1(2), Nashik

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

ITA 1714/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1714/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Omkareshwar Vs. Ito (Exemption)-1(2), Devasthan Charitable Trust, Nashik. C/O M. V. Medicals Opp. Telephone Building, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aafts7927R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket M. Joshi Revenue By : Shri Chandra Vijay Date Of Hearing : 21.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Ludhiana [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust Furnished Its Return Of Income Prior To The Due Date Mentioned U/S 139 Of The It Act. However, The Audit Report In Form 10B Could Not Be Filed Along With Return Of Income But The Same Was Filed On 11-11-2017 & Therefore The Cpc In The Intimation Dated 27-03-2019

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay

Section 11Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154

first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) was due to the wrong advise provided by the earlier counsel, who suggested to file application for rectification u/s 154 against the intimation instead to file appeal against the intimation. In this regard, an affidavit of the earlier counsel was produced before the Bench

Vinay Ramsharandas Agrawal, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 110/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 143(3)Section 263

detriment of the Revenue, he has ample power to either reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can't usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under

Infosoft Global P Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 501/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

appeal against the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act. Similarly, in the case of CESC Ltd. (supra) the issue related to the rectification u/s 154 of the Act with respect to the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act for which a detailed I.T.A. No.: 501/KOL/2024 Assessment Year

Randive Builders and Developers, Maharashtra vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1833/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(4)Section 154Section 69C

following grounds: 1. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO and CIT (A) is justified in invoking rectification u/s 154 of the Act for applying provision of section 115BBE of the IT Act on undisclosed investment of Rs.1,25,85,257 surrendered during

Randive Builders and Developers, Maharashtra vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1378/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(4)Section 154Section 69C

Mc Mowjee & Co Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O. Ward-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2118/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ito Ward-4(1) Mc Mowjee & Co. Private Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Limited 118, Tollygunge Circular Road, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Tollygunge, Kolkata-700053, Kolkata-700069 West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcm7491D Assessee By : Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Arup Chatterjee, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 40

Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Hero Cycles (P). Ltd. 228 ITR 463 (SC), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that rectification u/s 154 of the MC Mowjee & Co. Private Limited; A.Y. 2015-16 Act can only be made when glaring mistake of fact or law has been

M/S. Nandi Engineering Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1942/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri H. Siva Prasaad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Netrapal M.S., D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 68

Mismatch in the income as per ITR and 2,60,843/- Form No.26AS Total 5,24,99,175/- Rectification u/s 154. 2.1 The ld. AO thereafter issued notice u/s 154 of the Act dated, 02-02-2024 communicating that there was a prima facie mistake apparent from the record

Advertising Standards Council of India, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exempion), Mumbai

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

ITA 6703/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2018-19 Advertising Standards Council Cit (Exemptions), Of India, 6Th Floor, A/402, Aurus Chambers, Vs. Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te Building, S.S. Amrutwar Marg, Pedder Road, Worli, S.O., Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai Cumballa Hill, Pan : Aaaca7314C Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Singh & Ms. Nidhi Goradia For Revenue : Dr. K.R. Subhash, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh &For Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 263

exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The Ld A.R submitted that the computation so mentioned in the tax computation is a matter of rectification u/s 154 of the Act and we agree with it. We also noticed that the AO has brought to tax the long term capital gains