← 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

Judgments citing rectification u/s 154

Kutchi Sarvodaya Nagar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) - 1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4127/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailkutchi Sarvodaya Nagar Vs. Income Tax Officer P.L. Lokhande Marg, (Exemptions)-1(4) Near Narayan Guru High Piramal Chambers, School, Govandi, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai – 400043 Mumbai - 400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatk0678E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Pradip Kapasi Respondent By : P.D. Chougule Date Of Hearing 22.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac For A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “I. Ground No. 1: Failure To Issue Notice U/S. 250 The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Failing To Issue Notice For Furnishing Written Submissions And/Or Hearing Of Appeal As Required U/S 250(1), (2) & (6B) Read With The Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 Issued Under Notification No 139/2021 Dt 28.12.2021 Of The Act & In Particular Not Allowing The Appellant To Furnish Its Submissions. Your Appellant Prays That An Order Passed Without Issuing Notice U/S. 250 Be Quashed Ii Ground No. 2: Failure To Give Opportunity Of Hearing By Cit(A) The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing An Order In Appeal Without Giving An Opportunity Of Hearing, Orally Or Virtually, As Required By The Provisions Of The Act. Rules, Scheme, Notifications & Circulars & The Decisions Of The Courts & In Particular The Decision In The Cases Of Ba Continuum India (P.) Ltd., 125 Taxmann.Com 180 (Bom.) & Sanjay Aggarwal, 127 Taxmann.Com

For Appellant: Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: P.D. Chougule
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 246ASection 250Section 250(1)

which is again in the nature of an ex-parte order, without appreciating the case of appellant. V. GROUND NO. 5: INVALID RECTIFICATION U/S 154 OF AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S 143(3) The Id. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the order of rectification ... facts in confirming the action of the AO in levying surcharge on the gross tax liability under an order of rectification u/s 154 dt 04.03.2021 for amending the assessment order u/s 143(3) dt. 28.12.2016. Your appellant submits that the surcharge was not payable by the assessee charitable trust. Your

Rai Udyog Ltd., Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Nagpur

In the result, these twin appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 312/NAG/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 311 & 312/Nag/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rai Udyog Limited 1, Rajat Sankul, Opp. Bus Stand, Ganesh Peth, Nagpur-440018 Pan: Aaccr6008G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Hq-1 / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds), Nagpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध/ Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 21/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By These Twin Appeals The Assessee Challenged Against The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044245542(1) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1044244849(1) Both Dt. 28/07/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The National Faceless Appellate Centre [‘Nfac’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2014-15 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 154Section 194ISection 201(1)Section 24Section 246A(1)(c)Section 250Section 271C

perused the material placed on record in light of rule 18 of ITAT-Rules and noted that the order of rectification u/s 154 of the Act was passed on 27/07/2018 and order levying penalty u/s 271C of the Act was passed on 11/05/2018, whereas the appeal thereagainst before

M/S. Rai Udyog Ltd., Nagpur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Nagpur

In the result, these twin appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 311/NAG/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 311 & 312/Nag/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rai Udyog Limited 1, Rajat Sankul, Opp. Bus Stand, Ganesh Peth, Nagpur-440018 Pan: Aaccr6008G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Hq-1 / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds), Nagpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध/ Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 21/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By These Twin Appeals The Assessee Challenged Against The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044245542(1) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1044244849(1) Both Dt. 28/07/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The National Faceless Appellate Centre [‘Nfac’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2014-15 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 154Section 194ISection 201(1)Section 24Section 246A(1)(c)Section 250Section 271C

perused the material placed on record in light of rule 18 of ITAT-Rules and noted that the order of rectification u/s 154 of the Act was passed on 27/07/2018 and order levying penalty u/s 271C of the Act was passed on 11/05/2018, whereas the appeal thereagainst before

Anurag Dikshit, C/O Ernst and Young LLP vs. Centralised Processing Centre of Income Tax Department, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3888/MUM/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalanurag Dikshit, Vs. The Income Tax Officer C/O Ernst & Young Llp (It)2(1)(1), Air India 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Building, Nariman Point, Dadar West, Maharashtra Mumbai - 400021 400028 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aeepd3232M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari & Bhumik Vasa Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Sinha Date Of Hearing 05.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-56, Dated 21.09.2023 For A.Y. 2021-22. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Cit(A), On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Erred In Not Assessing The Correct Income Of The Appellant By Holding That The Learned Ao Had No Power To Reduce The Income Offered By The Appellant. 2. The Learned Cit(A), On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Erred In Not Reducing The Corresponding Rent Income Of Inr 32,54, 155 From The Returned Income Of Ay: 2021-22, While Disallowing The Corresponding Tds Credit Of Inr 13,77,757 Claimed In The Return Of Income. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Vary, Omit, Substitute Or Amend Any Or All Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal, At Any Time Before Or At, The Time Of The Appeal, So As To Enable The Hon'Ble Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal To Decide This Appeal According To Law.”

For Appellant: Nikhil Tiwari &For Respondent: Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 154

return since the premises was occupied till 15.03.2021 because of termination of the lease of the premises. The CPC has carried out the rectification u/s 154 of the Act and only after receiving the rectification order u/s 154 of the Act the assessee came to know that TCS had filed ... period for the property given on rent for the year under consideration was 11 and half months. The CPC has carried out the rectification u/s 154 of the Act and withdrawn the excess credit of TDS granted to the assessee, however, simultaneously the excess rent charged from the assessee

Kohinoor Industrial Premises Co-Op Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-31(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3697/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhkohinoor Industrial Vs. Ito, Ward 31(2)(2), Premises Co-Op Society Kautilya Bhavan, Limited, Plot No.10, Cts Bandra, No. 67, Dindoshi Village, Mumbai – 400 051 Western Express Highway Goregaon East Maharashtra – 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaaak4970G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Kirit S. Sanghvi Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 27.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 11.07.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Ctt(A) [Nfac, Delhi] Erred On Facts & In Law In Disallowing Rs.22,92,110/-Claimed As Deduction Under S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act 2. The Learned Cit(A) [Nfac, Delhi] Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Order Passed Under S 154 Of The Act By Holding That There Was No Mistake Apparent From The Records 3. The Learned Cit(A) (Nfac, Delhi) Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The View Of The Cpc That The Appellant Did Not Correctly Fill In Sch-Via For Claiming Deduction Under S 80P. Relief Claimed: The Appellant Be Allowed Deduction Of Rs.22,92,110/- Under S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Kirit S. SanghviFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

order u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 31.05.2019 and assessed the total income at Rs.48,46,750/-. Therefore, assessee has filed rectification u/s 154 of the Act, however, the CPC Vide order dated u/s 154 of the Act dated 06.01.2020 has rejected the rectification application filed by the assessee

Pramod Tarade, Raigad vs. CIT ( NFAC ), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 898/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.898/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Pramod Tarade, The Commissioner Of A-2, Sai Ameya Chs, Plot V Income Tax,[Nfac]. No.28, Sector-12, Kharghar, S Panvel, Raigad – 410210. Maharashtra. Pan: Aevpt9870L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Tarun G – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2021-22 Passed On 24.06.2023 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.12.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. The Order Of The Cit(A) Nfac, Dt. 24-06-2023 For The A.Y. 2021 -22 Is Contrary To Law & Facts & In The Circumstances Of Pramod Tarade [A]

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

income for salary income earned at Norway. Copy of the form 67 has been enclosed in Annexure – IV 6. The appellant had filed rectification U/S 154 dated 29/12/2022 against the intimation u/s 143(1) stating that the intimation has an apparent mistake by not giving the foreign tax credit towards