“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

Arti Sareen, New Delhi vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2087/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. Aditi Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 154(2)Section 23

directions of the ld. DRP have not been considered with regard to the factual claim of the assessee regarding the double taxation and rectification u/s 154(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with regard to A.Y. 2019-20 so that the assessee is not subjected to double taxation

Mayur Global Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 906/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 154Section 234A

brought to notice during the assessment proceeding. 12 Mayur Global Pvt. Ltd. vs.ITO In view of the above facts assessee's application for rectification u/s 154 is not acceptable, being the mistake pointed out is apparent on the face of assessment records, hence rejected.” In the assessment order ... same. Now the appellant has taken recourse to the provision of Section 154 to state its case against the disallowance. The power of rectification u/s 154 of the Act can be exercised only if there is a mistake apparent from the record of the assessment of the assessee. In other

Shri Siddeshwar Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Muchandi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Belgaum

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 539/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Praveen P. Ghali, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

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

authorities as against the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act. It was submitted by the ld. A.R. that assessee had preferred rectification u/s 154 of the Act against the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act and the last rectification order is dated 3.3.2023. It was submitted

Divyadatta Digamber Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Limited Satara, Koregaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Satara

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

ITA 651/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 651/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Divyadatta Digamber Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Moti Heights, Azaad Chowk, New St-Stand, Koregaon, Satara-415501 Pan: Aaeas1871L . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pr[mo^ Scnat_ [‘L^. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Uma Shankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P(2)

while processing return of income, the Ld. CPC did not allow the claim u/s 80P(2) deduction, the assessee filed an application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act on 03/01/2015. The L^. CPC’s rejection to rectify its action in not allowing 80P(2) deduction to the assessee ... dismantled the assessee’s pl_[ `or 80P(2) deduction raised by it first- time through application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act, 3 Pained by the actions of tax authorities below, the assessee instituted the present appeal with a sole & substantive ground for claim of 80P(2) deduction

Aviaxpert Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 3(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 87/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.87/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Avia Xpert Pvt. Ltd. Ito, E-178, East Of Kailash, Vs. Ward 3(1), New Delhi. C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaica7960L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 36(1)(va)

passing of the rectification order u/s 154 of the Act. Therefore, the adjustment made by CPC disallowing PF/ESI contributions by way of rectification u/s 154 of the Act cannot be said to be a mistake apparent on record as contemplated u/s 154 of the Act. Therefore, for this reason also ... order passed u/s 154 of the Act disallowing PF/ESI contributions by way of rectification u/s 154 of the Act cannot be sustained. I.T.A.No.87/Del/2024 15. As we have held that the rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act is bad in law, we are not inclined to go into

Om Infra Limited, Jaipur Rajasthan vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

ITA 811/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 80Section 801C(2)(b)Section 80I

though the mistake pointed by Ld. A.O. is not rectifiable & apparent the issue is debatable hence cannot be rectified u/s 154. Submissions: The rectification u/s 154 can be made for the mistake which is apparent on record the Ld. A.O. issued notice u/s 154 for allowing of deduction u/s 80IC ... reply in connection with those notices so issued is incorrect. 22 Om Infra Limited vs. DCIT, Central Circle-01, Jaipur 12. The rectification u/s 154 can be made for the mistake which is apparent on record the issue for allowing of deduction u/s 80IC(2)(b)(ii) is a matter

Balaji Phosphates Limited, Indore vs. Dcitacit 1(1) Indore, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 209/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanibalaji Phosphates Limited, Dcitacit 1(1), 305, Utsav Avenue, Indore Vs. 12/5 Ushaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcb5654R Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234Section 40

that once the order was passed u/s 154 of the Act then the assessee should have filed the appeal against the order of rectification u/s 154 of the Act as the original processing u/s 143(1) of the Act merges with the order passed u/s 154

Current Infraprojects Private Limited, Basant Vihar vs. ACIT, DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur, Baba Sidhnath Bahwan

ITA 534/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal While Challenging Order Dated 22.02.2024, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Act"), Whereby Its Appeal Challenging Intimation, U/S 143(1) Of The Act & Dated 24.12.2020, Has Been Dismissed. 2

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Rajvanshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A.S Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 116Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 200ASection 206CSection 250Section 65Section 7

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES," A-Bench” JAIPUR श्री राठौड़ कमलेश

Green Orchand Farm Houses, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 879/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Saravanan B., D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 154Section 43C

completed on 24.12.2018 as follows: Green Orchard Farm Houses, Bangalore Page 11 of 25 5.1 Later this order was subject matter of rectification u/s 154 of the Act dated 15.10.2019 as follows: Green Orchard Farm Houses, Bangalore Page 12 of 25 Green Orchard Farm Houses, Bangalore Page

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Hickson Dadajee Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2052/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am Income Tax Officer Hickson Dadajee Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 570, Aayakar Mazannine Floor, Bhawan, Mamasaheb Varerkar Bridge, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Grant Road, S.O., Mumbai-400 007 Pan/Gir No. Aaach 0986 M (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul J. Shah Respondent By : Shri P. D. Chougule Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 O R D E R Per Amit Shukla, J M: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 20.02.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) & Proceedings U/S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act') For The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under: 1. "Whether In Facts & Circumstances Of The Ease & In Law, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Order Passed By Ao U/S 154 Rs 250 Dated 31.03.2021 As "Bad In Law Without Appreciating The Fact That Earlier Order Was Inadvertently Passed Only "U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act & The Second Order Was Passed U/S 250 Rs 154 Of The It Act" To Correct These Bonafide Mistake Occurred & Hence The Same Is Covered By The Provisions Of Section 292 B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vipul J. ShahFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 292

order of the ld. CIT (A) as he cannot go beyond the directions given by the ld. CIT (A) in the garb of rectification u/s 154. The aforesaid observation and the finding of the ld. CIT (A) clearly shows that the ld. A.O. has exceeded his jurisdiction by disallowing

Sankalp Engineering and Services Private Limited, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 10, Pune

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

ITA 249/PUN/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 56(2)(ia)Section 68

assessee, LD CIT (A)/NFAC, vide order dated 30.12.2023 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Assessee then preferred an application for rectification u/s 154 of the IT Act 4 before LD CIT(A)/NFAC & also preferred 2nd appeal before this Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing before

Sahara Universal Mining Corporation Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-7(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 648/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 239(2)(c)Section 240Section 250Section 251

impugned order of the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have perused the case of the assessee from which following facts emerged: a) Rectification u/s 154 of the Act dated 31.01.2018 was made by ACIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata and computing the total income to ₹ 1,17,37,474/-. Page

Care Foundation Village, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward Exemption 1(3), Delhi

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

ITA 3746/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Nfac, Delhi.

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 57

time of filing return of income and determined the taxable income at Rs.9,41,368/-. Subsequently, the assessee moved an application online for rectification u/s 154 of IT Act praying for rectification of mistake due to the reason of return being filed in ITR Form 7 instead of ITR Form ... assessee may not be entertained. 7. In the rejoinder, Ld. AR submitted that there is a sufficient time for filing the rectification u/s 154 of the Act and also the assessee has raised the same issue before the CPC and subsequently filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore

ITO-6(1), Lucknow vs. M/S U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 261/LKW/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.261/Lkw/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1), Lucknow . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Namita Pandey [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 154Section 250

former judicial precedents we find no fault in reversing the inadvertent allowance of impugned item ‘provision for loss in investment’ by way of rectification u/s 154 of the Act by the Ld. AO. In view thereof the impugned order tearing down the rectification cannot continue to stand; thus, set-aside

Chinmaya Educational Society, Chinmaya Vidyalaya, Uhf, Nauni, Solan vs. ITO Ward Exemptions, Solan

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 528/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 528/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Chinmaya Educational Society, Vs. The Ito, Chinmaya Vidyalaya,, Ward Exemptions, बनाम Uhf, Nauni, Solan 172230 Solan Himachal Pradesh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaatc2581J अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04 .07.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parveen Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, DR

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

Kerala High Court in case of Upasana Hospital and Nursing Home vs CIT 253 ITR 507(Ker.) has decided that power of rectification u/s 154 is to be exercised with reference to the records of the assessee available with the Assessing Officer and not with particular reference to the assessment

Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Khargone vs. The Income Tax Officer National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 179/IND/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2021-22 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Cpc / Ito, Nfac Bank Maryadit, बनाम/ 33,Khandwa Road, Vs. Khargone (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaatj0529K Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr & Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.06.2024

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 37(1)

intimation u/s 143(1) in which the impugned disallowance was originally made by AO. According to CIT(A), the assessee has gone into rectification u/s 154 and thereafter filed appeal against order u/s 154 which is not acceptable. However, this technical issue raised by CIT(A) is already settled

Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Khargone vs. The Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 178/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2019-20 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Cpc / Ito, Nfac Bank Maryadit, बनाम/ 33,Khandwa Road, Vs. Khargone (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaatj0529K Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr & Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28.06.2024

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

Laxmi Narayan Residency D Co. Op Hsg Soc Ltd, Thane vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhrilaxmi Narayan Residency D Vs. Assistant Director Of Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Income-Tax Cpc, Plot No. 189, 190, 191, Bengaluru/Ito Ward(1)1, Village Majjwada, Gokhale Road, Thane Pokhran Road No. 2, Unnati Garden, 3, Thane (W.)-400610 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaal7961N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bharat GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Pasale

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2(19)Section 250Section 7Section 70Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

assessee was disallowed by the CPC, Bangaluru while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. The assessee’s application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act was also rejected by the CPC. 4. Aggrieved with the order dated 23.02.2023, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A)/NFAC

Fortum Sar B.V., Netherlands vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3)(1) Int. Taxation, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2028/DEL/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2022-23

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

reason whatsoever. Against the intimation issued u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act, carrying out such adjustment, assessee preferred an application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act. The said application was disposed of by CPC on 26.11.2022 sustaining the disallowance, again, without assigning any reason. Thus, the action

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sp Port Maintenance Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue are dismissed in the above terms

ITA 3895/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan & Dcit 3(3)1 Vs. Sp Port Maintenance Private Room No. 522, Aaykar Bhavan, M. Limited K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 41/44, Shapoorji Pallonji 400 020. Centre Mumbai, Colaba S.O, Pan: Aaxcs6219B Mumbai – 400 005. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

contained in para 4.6 onward of impugned order is relevant and reproduced as under: - “4.6. The appellant had also filed an Application for Rectification u/s 154 filed with the Learned Assessing Officer requesting to ITA No. 3895/Mum/2023 & 3896 of 2023 SP Port Maintenance