← All Phrases

“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
18
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

The Kumbakonam Central Cooperative Bank, Kumbakonam vs. CIT (Appeals)

In the result the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 584/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.583/Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.584/Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Kumbakonam Central Cooperative Bank, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of No.150, T.S.R. Big Street, Income Tax (Appeals), Kumbakonam, Circle-1, Kumbakonam. Tamil Nadu-612001. [Pan: Aaaat0148B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr.Varun Ranganathan,Advocate for Mr.Ravi Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)

facts of the case. It was submitted that firstly the subject line of the said letter dated 11.01.2022 states that it is for rectification u/s 154. The Ld. CIT, DR argued that the impugned request had nothing to do with the controversy of asking the Ld. AO for consideration ... mistakenly omitted to be claimed in the return of income. Material available on records indicates that but for letter dated 11.01.2022 for rectification u/s 154, there is nothing to allude that such request was made. We find sufficient force in the argument of the Ld. CIT, DR that the impugned

The Kumbakonam Central Cooperative Bank, Kumbakonam vs. CIT (Appeals)

In the result the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 583/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.583/Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.584/Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Kumbakonam Central Cooperative Bank, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of No.150, T.S.R. Big Street, Income Tax (Appeals), Kumbakonam, Circle-1, Kumbakonam. Tamil Nadu-612001. [Pan: Aaaat0148B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr.Varun Ranganathan,Advocate for Mr.Ravi Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: A.Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)

facts of the case. It was submitted that firstly the subject line of the said letter dated 11.01.2022 states that it is for rectification u/s 154. The Ld. CIT, DR argued that the impugned request had nothing to do with the controversy of asking the Ld. AO for consideration ... mistakenly omitted to be claimed in the return of income. Material available on records indicates that but for letter dated 11.01.2022 for rectification u/s 154, there is nothing to allude that such request was made. We find sufficient force in the argument of the Ld. CIT, DR that the impugned

D.S.K. Madhuban (Wing A&B ) Co -Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 41(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6383/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 43BSection 80

facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, dismissing the appeal on the ground stating that "the effect of the subsequent rectification u/s 154 dated 15.01.2022 has to be read as forming part of original intimation u/s 143(1) dated 25.11.2021 only and not independently. therefore, the impugned

D.S.K. Madhuban (Wing A&B) Co-Op Housing Society Lid, Mumbai vs. ITO 41(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6382/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 43BSection 80

facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, dismissing the appeal on the ground stating that "the effect of the subsequent rectification u/s 154 dated 15.01.2022 has to be read as forming part of original intimation u/s 143(1) dated 25.11.2021 only and not independently. therefore, the impugned

M/S. Khedut Oil Traders, Mumbai vs. I.T.O, -22(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3833/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Khedut Oil Traders Vs. Ito – 22(2)(1) D-403 / Godavari Chs Ltd., Piramal Chambers, Sir P.M Road, Off Tilak Road, Lalbaug. Parel Santacruz (W), Mumbai Mumbai. Pan/Gir No. Aaafk1294J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 40A(2)(b)

income but Intimation u/s. 143(1) shows income of Rs.41,843/- with Tax payable of Rs. 14,700/. Hence we had filed Rectification u/s 154 of the Act. However, the appellant was not granted relief and aggrieved by the same we had filed Appeal before CIT(A). The Ld. Assessing

Rac Infra Rental LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-34(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6630/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhrirac Infra Rental Llp V/S. Ito, Ward 34(3)(2), 408/409, Parle Square, बनाम Mumbai Above Big Bazzar, Kaurilaya Bhavan, Bandra Monghibai Road, Vileparle Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400057 (East), Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aarfr3148P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80J

bonafide belief that the mistake in the computation of taxable income was an inadvertent error, and therefore, it made a request for rectification u/s 154 vide P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2020-21 RAC Infra Rental LLP letter dated 10.10.2022 before the AO. Subsequently, the assessee was informed

Shiv Vegpro Private Limited, Kota vs. PCIT-Udaipur, Udaipur

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, (Adv.) &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, (CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

could be a case of rectification but not at all a case of revision. Therefore, the proper course should have been a rectification u/s 154 of the Act (though not conceding) instead of invoking Section 263. In this regard kindly refer to the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan

Lalit Kumar Poddar, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 33, Kolkata

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

ITA 2170/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

rectification of mistake but the AO passed the order stating that the said application is the subject matter of appeal and no rectification u/s 154 of the act against the said order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) stating all the grounds

Syed Hifajat Ali, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur

Appeal are disposed of in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 527/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 527/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

support such claim, in terms of corroborative evidence, also apparently no such claim was made before the Ld. AO while seeking rectification u/s 154, therefore, we are unable to consider and to persuade with such contention of the assessee under the grounds of appeal in the present case. As described

Flemingo Liners Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Wqard-15(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6176/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 234B

evident that the statute here has used the word 'SHALL' clearly while laying down the time limit for any rectification u/s 154 of the Act which is mandatory. There are only two exceptions i.e. sections 155 and 186(4) of the Act. Perusal of the provision do not reveal

Hetika Mayankkumar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1718/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice(Retd.) C V Bhadang & Dr.Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Shri SN Divatia with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Shi Yogesh Mishra, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

Rs.54,46,896/- and the total income was recomputed at Rs.77,84,020/- by the CPC. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed application for rectification u/s 154 on the ITBA. However, it was rejected without assigning any reason and income under the head “Income from other sources” was determined at Rs.27

R.K.Electricals, Kota vs. ITO, WD-2(4), Kota

12. In view of the above discussion, this appeal deserves to be dismissed

ITA 333/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Employees provident fund- contributions to the tune of Rs. 4,79,558/- made by the assessee. The assessee is said to have filed rectification u/s 154 of the Act, but could not get any respite. 4 R.K. Electricals vs. DCIT 5. Intimation order u/s

M/S. R M Sales and Services Private Limited, Satna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Satna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 138/JAB/2023[AY 2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur08 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. R.M. Sales & Services V. Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. Ward-2 Delha Mod, Sarla Nagar, Maihar Civil Lines, Satna - Distt. Satna-485772 (Mp). 485001. Pan:Aadcr5893G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 01 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Asstt. Director of Income, CPC, Bangaluru who determined the total loss at Rs.14,38,984/-. Against which the assessee filed application seeking rectification u/s 154 of the Act. The application was rejected vide order dated 09.06.2021. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed ... Asstt. Director of Income, CPC Bangaluru, determining total loss at Rs 14,38,984/against which the appellant has approached reprocessed application of rectification u/s 154 of I.T. Act, 1961 that was rejected vide rectification order passed u/s 154 of the act dated 09.06.2021. 4. The Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru, forwarded

Bussa Industrial Premises Co Operative Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO(22)(1)(3), Piramal Chambers, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 4856/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbussa Industrial Premises Co- Ito 22(1)(3), Operative Society Ltd. Vs. Piramal Chamber, Mumbai. Century Bazaar Lane, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan: Aaaab6817F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Pritesh Joshi, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 12.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court could be furnished. The Appellant has relied on the Intimation u/s 143(1) and Rectification u/s 154 of its own case for the AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20. I find that in AY 2018-19, there was a disallowance

Vaibhav Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1081/JPR/2024[AY2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Mantri, C.AFor Respondent: Shr. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT a
Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 90

demand of Rs. 5,50,300/- vide intimation order u/s 143(1)(a) dated 26. 10.2022. The assessee filed an application for rectification u/s 154 as non-allowance of relief was mistake apparent on record. The CPC has not considered the facts of the case and disallowed the whole relief ... raised a demand of Rs.5,50,300/- vide intimation order u/s 143(1)(a) dated 26.10.2022. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an application for rectification u/s 154 as non-allowance of relief was mistake apparent on record. The CPC again did not considered the same and disallowed the whole relief being

Shree Nityanandswami Education Trust, Dharmaj Tarapur Road vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedbad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1420/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return Of Income. The Return Was Processed U/S. 143(1) Dated 28-02-2016 Denying Exemption U/S 11 & Demanding Tax Of Rs.53,66,637/- & Interest Of Rs.16,47,546/-.

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 156

manner in letter form on 16.06.2022. In portal it is named as 'Issue Letter. Assessee had preferred an appeal against such order of rectification u/s 154 within a week on 14.10.2022.” 3.1. Ld. CIT(A) without considering the above reasons dismissed the appeal in limine. 4. Aggrieved against the same

Krishnamurthi Vanaja, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-1(4), Coimbatore

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2572/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2572/Chny/2024 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Smt. Krishnamurthi Vanaja Ito बनाम #7, Co-Operative Colony, Non-Corporate Ward-1(4), / Vs. Uppilipalayam, Coimbatore-641 015. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahpv-1852-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Raghupathy (Addl.CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154

which tax was deducted at source. The assessee was not allowed TDS credit in the return of income. Initially, the assessee requested for rectification u/s 154 which was refused on 13-07-2022. The assessee preferred another application which was allowed on 10- 11-2022. However, another suo-motu rectification

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1344/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1344/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito Shri Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia बनाम International Taxation Ward-2(1) #34 (Old #77), Meddox Street, / Vs. Chennai. Choolai, Chennai-600 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akzpp-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms. Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar & Ms. SamyukthaFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 234C

computed STCG of Rs.52.10 Crores and raised tax demand of Rs.4.79 Crores. Since there were discrepancies in the working, the assessee filed rectification u/s 154 wherein the total income was revised to Rs.43.07 Crores and tax demand was reduced to Rs.2.28 Crores. Still aggrieved, the assessee further appeal which reached

The Sangeet Plaza Iftex Office Premises Coop Soc Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is hereby allowed

ITA 5541/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

interest earned from deposits with Co-operative bankclaimed in terms of section 80P(2)(d).Subsequent rectification application of the assessee for of rectification u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act was also rejected by CPC. 4. In the subsequent appeal before the CIT(A), the first appellate authority rejected

Pink City Jewel House Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur

ITA 598/JPR/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Saurav Harsh, Adv.&
Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144oSection 14ASection 263Section 69

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