“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

Anil Kumar Pruthi, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 691/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmananil Kumar Pruthi, Income Tax Officer, S/O Sh. Jagan Nath Ward-1, Hisar. Pruthi, Vs. 165, Sector-15A, Hisar-125001, Haryana. Pan:Aaspp4439J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 133(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

that this issue is no more res-integra and facts are exactly identical in the present case except this is subject matter of rectification u/s 154 of the Act. We noted that even on merits, the AO or CIT(A) has not disputed the fact, but in case of rectification ... view that the AO as well as CIT(A) erred in not allowing the relief for leave encashment by adjudicating rectification u/s 154 of the Act. We allow this issue and, accordingly, set aside the orders of lower authorities. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Badrinath Shreenivas, Bangalore, Karnataka vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Vadodara

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

ITA 1055/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1055/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Badrinath Shreenivas The Ito बनाम/ 605/A, 80 Feet Double Road Ward-1(2)(3) V/S. Rmv Club Vadodara – 390 015 Rmv Extension Ii Stage S.O. Bangalore North, Bangalore 15-Karnataka, 91-India Karnataka – 560 094 (Karnataka) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Adpps 0435 H अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Veeresh Budati, Ar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Veeresh Budati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 148Section 250

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act and Rs.15,23,878/- as unexplained income. The assessee also filed an application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act, which led to partial rectification, granting 30% standard deduction u/s 24(a) of the Act for rent income and credit for TDS amounting

Ravinder Kumar Prop M/S R K Enterprises, Jind vs. ITO, Ward-1, Jind

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed ex parte

ITA 2779/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Ravinder Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer Ward Prop. M/S R.K.Enterprises 1 Jind Village Nirjan Now H.No. 4626 Near Eklavya Stadium Sec -11 Jind Pan No. Bgtpk2103E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By None Respondent By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm: The Above Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Vide Order Dated 23.09.2022 Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12 Arises Out Of The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Dated 31.03.2021 U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act,1961[Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’] 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1- The Impugned Order Is Both Against Facts & Erroneous In Law. 2- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) /Nfac Delhi Has Erred In Having Confirmed The Action Of The Ld Ao In Having Passed An Order U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act Was Without Jurisdiction & Void Abinitio. 3- On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Having Sustained An Addition Of Rs 1314400/- Made By The Ao After Rejecting The Explanation Of The Assessee.

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 154

return of income on 26-11-2012 declaring Rs 13,2 5,99/ and the assessment proceeding was completed. A notice for rectification u/s 154 of the Act was issued on 15-01-2012. The assessing officer has passed the assessment order making an addition

Monalisa Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeal are allowed

ITA 4012/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. B R Baskaran & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court could be furnished. The Appellant has relied on the Intimation u/s 1434) 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 of claim

Power and Instrumentation (Gujarat) Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Circle 3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1212/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1212/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Power & Instrumentation The Acit बनाम/ (Gujarat) Ltd. Circle-3(3)(1) V/S. 12, Sunshin Industrial Estate Ahmedabad – 390 014 Rakhial, Ahmedabad – 380 023 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaccp 4292 Q (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07/05/2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], Upholding The Order Of Rectification Dated 23-11-2021 Under Section 154 Of The Act For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Ao"].

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

assessee observed the error in computation of tax liability and credit on account of TDS. Therefore, the assessee filed an application for rectification u/s 154. The AO, on scrutiny, gave credit of TDS and passed order u/s 154 r.w.s. 143(1) of the Act. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal

Hirdey Ram, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 319/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumara.Yr. : 2014-15 Hirdey Ram, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), C/O L.C. Yadav & Company, Gurgaon 205, Arcadia, South City-2, Haryana - 122102 Gurgaon, Haryana – 122018 (Pan: Aarpy8597K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24

under:- “…The submissions as well as the contentions of the appellant have been duly considered. It is noted that for carrying out rectification u/s 154, there has to be a mistake apparent from record. In other words, a look at the record must show that there has been an error

Ashok Sharma, Kota vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2 - Kota, Kota

ITA 359/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Kabra (C.A.) (V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)

Order u/s 143(3) (D. & C. R. No. 38/10) Mr. A.L. Meena Adhoc 1% disallowance of Material Consumed Exps. 2 Notice for rectification u/s 154 (ACIT/Cir-2/KTA/2017- 18/1133) Mr. Ajitesh Kumar Omission to make addition as a mistake apparent on record of 8 lakhs. No order passed. 3 Order u/s ... well, no fresh facts being brought to record. Since before issuance of notice u/s 148 the ld. AO issued notice for rectification u/s 154, therefore, it is clear that his intention was to rectify the mistake committed by him through reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148, which is invalid and not covered

Monish Bipin Shah, Mumbai vs. Dy.Com. of Income Tax, CPC, (Jao: Circle 27(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4957/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabash Shankarassessment Year: 2016-17 Monish Bipin Shah Dy. Com. Of Income Tax, C-1002, Lodha Bellissimo, Cpc [Jao : Circle 27(2), N. M. Joshi Marg, Mumbai] Jacob Circle, Room No. 419, Mumbai- 400011. 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Flat 22, Nirmala Mahal, Vashi Railway Station, Vs. Bomenji Petit Road Breach Commercial Complex, Vashi, Candy, Navi Mumbai- 400703. Mumbai- 400036. Pan: Aglps5759F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh/Akshay PawarFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (SR. D.R.)

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id C.L.T.(A) erred in upholding rejection of Application for Rectification U/s 154 insofar as Computation of Tax liability. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred in upholding rejection ... Application for Rectification U/s 154 insofar as treating the application as Fresh Claim for TDS as not being a mistake apparent from record. 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred in uploading rejection of Application for Rectification U/s 154 insofar

Marsh India Insurance Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 4341/MUM/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT D/R

Section 10(35)Section 115PSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 80G

that since the claim was denied by processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act, the assessee has moved an application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act which is pending disposal before the CPC, Bengaluru. On such concession, we are of the considered view that the said application

Vinod Prasad Injeti, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, we reverse the orders of the ld

ITA 1252/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Jyothi Anumolu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234A

same preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging that there is no mistake apparent from the record which warrants any rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. The assessee also explained that ld. AO has wrongly computed the long term capital gain in rectification proceedings ... applied his mind to the facts of the case and has computed long term capital gain, therefore there is no question of any rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. 11. Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. AO. He referred

Mindsprint Digital (India) Private Limited, Chennai vs. Assistant Director of Income-Tax, Centralized Processing Center, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1337/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Sandeep Bagmar, Adv

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 246A

determined as result of error in processing the return by the CPC and mistakes apparent from records which requires rectification u/s 154 of the Act, the assessee Company e- filed a rectification application and requested seeking reprocessing the ITR M/s.Mindsprint Digital (India) Pvt. Ltd. :: 5 :: for AY 2021-22. Subsequently

Neetu Agarwal, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1898/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.1898/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Neetu Agarwal………………………………………………………….…..……Appellant Flat 6C, Block 2, Shree Ramnagar Residential Complex, Vip Road, Tegharia, W.B – 700052. [Pan: Actpa2426P] Vs. Ito, Kolkata……………..............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Puja Agarwal, A.R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Biswas, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 18, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 11.07.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee Is A Resident Individual, Who Filed Her Return Of Income On 29.12.2021 For The Financial Year 2020-21 Relevant To Assessment Year 2021-22 Reporting A Total Income Of Rs.25,58,440/-. The Assessee Discharged Her Tax Liability By Way Of Tax Deducted At Source Amounting To Rs.2,80,028/-, Self-Assessment Tax Of Rs.22,740/- & Foreign Tax Credit (‘Ftc’) Of Rs.2,25,936/-. The Assessee Also Filed Form.67 Which Was Filed On 25.01.2022. An Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act Was Issued On 28.10.2022 In Which The Ftc Was Not Provided To The Assessee. This Disallowance Resulted In Tax Demand Of Rs.2,79,130/-.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

Rs.2,79,130/-. I.T.A. No.1898/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Neetu Agarwal 3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee filed an application for rectification u/s 154 of the act on 18.04.2023, however, on 12.05.2023 a rectification order was passed without granting credit for the FTC. 4. Dissatisfied with the above

Panasonic Carbon India Co. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ltu, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1084/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1084/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Panasonic Carbon India Company Ltd. Dcit 77, Old No.35, 3Rd Floor, बनाम Circle-1, Ltu, Pottpatti Plaza, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-5679-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri P. Uttamchand Jain (Ca) - Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri P. Uttamchand Jain (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT) - Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 154

emerges that the assessee was assessed u/s 143(3) on 20-02- 2021. To seek correction of certain discrepancies, the assessee sought rectification u/s 154 and Ld. AO rectified the computation of income vide order dated 12-10-2023. In this computation, Ld. AO applied tax rate

Gaurav Raja Pathak, Pune vs. DCIT-Circle1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1505/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkende

Section 112Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249Section 250

outcome before filing the appeal and hence, the delay in filing of appeal. The reason stated by the appellant that he had filed rectification u/s 154 is not acceptable as filing of appeal and filing of rectification application are two separate legal processes and filing of rectification application cannot prevent

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Pushkar Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2696/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Sagar (virtually present) & Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 54Section 80J

down by various Hon’ble High Courts as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the assessing officer has passed the rectification u/s 154 of the Act on 03.04.2019 wherein the assessing officer accepted the treatment of fertilizer subsidy as capital receipts relying on the ratios

Geeta Sharma, Sunam vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala

ITA 476/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi, CAFor Respondent: ShriRohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253Section 263Section 44ASection 80T

despite above application dated 10.11.2022. The impugned Order under Section 263 is dated 29/02/2024whereas order in original Assessment is dated 10/09/2021, application for rectification u/s 154 is dated 11/11/2022. Had any order u/s 154 would have been passedrectifying the mistake under original Assessment Order dated 10/09/2021 all stakeholders would

Prayas Tracon Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3627/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2008-09 Prayas Tracon Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii, (Now Known As With M/S Srs Faridabad Banquets & Resorts Ltd., D-28, South Extension, Part-I New Delhi – 110 049 (Pan: Aaccp8383L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender pal, CIT(DR)

Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 154

required to be amended u/s 154 of the IT Act, 1961.” In the meanwhile the assessee has also moved an application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act stating therein that while framing the assessment order benefit of carried forward losses/ depreciation was not allowed. The assessee vide its reply ... under:- “I have gone through the facts of the case and grounds of appeal. There is only one effective ground of appeal regarding rectification u/s. 154 made to alter the figure of addition made by the Assessing Officer. From a perusal of the assessment order, it is apparent that

Imperial Housing, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1792/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(1)Section 35D

basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law. Ld CIT(A) erred in holding that the issue subjected to rectification u/s 154 was debatable and could not legally be treated as a mistake apparent from record, without appreciating the fact that in the assessment order the preliminary ... therefore the CIT(A) / NFAC in our opinion was fully justified in holding that a debatable issue cannot be subject matter of rectification u/s 154 of the Act. In this view of the matter, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC and the grounds raised by the Revenue

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Pune vs. Imperial Housing, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1120/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(1)Section 35D

Jagat Pal Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2079/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80G

short), 1961 on 22.03.2013the short term capital gain of Rs 5868776/- has been taxed @ flat 30%. The Assessee filed an application for rectification u/s 154 as there were certain mistakes in the assessment order. The mistakes included non-adjustment of brought forward losses; non-adjustment of unabsorbed depreciation