“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

Shri Suresh Mal Lodha, 537-38, Mahima Trinity, New Sanganer Road, Swej Farm, Jaipur vs. ACIT Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 968/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahenda Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

also during assessment proceeding on 25.10.2011 (PB-21), but the AO ignored. Accordingly, the ld. C.A. also filed an application for rectification u/s 154 of the I T Act before the AO on 21.11.2011 to get the mistake rectified by reducing the income wrongly declared to the extent

Smt. Krishna Agrawal, Sahib Lal Ramnath Saraf, Chauth Mata Bazar, Kota vs. ACIT, Kotat, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 604/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234B

application dated 08-07-2017, requested to allow the loss on depreciation on building which was claimed in the ITR and to make rectification u/s 154 to reduce the demand of Rs.1,56,972/- raised on processing of ITR u/s 143(1) dated 20-07-2014. I have carefully considered ... with a request to allow the loss on depreciation on building which was claimed in the Income Tax Return and to make rectification u/s 154 to reduce the demand of Rs.1,56,972/- raised on processing of Income Tax Return u/s 143(1) dated 20-07-2014. From the material

Padmanabhan, Tirupur vs. CIT, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal stand dismissed

ITA 738/CHNY/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154

Checkmate Services P. Ltd. Vs CIT (Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022). Therefore, the assessee has now no basis to seek rectification u/s 154. 3. In the result, the appeal stand dismissed. Order pronounced on 19th December, 2022. (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) उपा01 /VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद9 / ACCOUNTANT

M/S Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payers Unit (Ltu) Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 3250/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3250/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80G

wrongly considered recovery of expenses at Rs. 146,521,126/- as part of the cost base and hence it sought a rectification u/s 154 but did not get any response from the TPO/AO. On its objections before the DRP, the DRP directed the TPO/ AO to examine the factual position

Petronet Mhb Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 789/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri M.G Vinay Simha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.R Narayana, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 37(1)

noted that the community development expenditure incurred by the assessee of Rs.11,01,192/- has been added back by the AO by passing rectification u/s 154 of the Act by holding that the expenditure is not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee

Hasu Exporters, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax-17, Mumbai

In the result, it is held that the initiation of proceedings under section 263 on the issue of LTCG is bad and uncalled for

ITA 1441/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalehasu Exporters Vs. Pr. Cit-17 Room No. 39, 1St Floor Room No. 120, 1St 94, Kansara Chawl, Floor, Kautilya Kalbadevi Road, Bhavan, C-41 To 43, G Mumbai – 400002. Block, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfh7119J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Himanshu Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Smt.Madhumalti Ghosh.Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pr.Cit) -17, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri. Himanshu Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Madhumalti Ghosh.CIT DR

Section 1Section 142(1)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 ... 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

The Goa Hindu Association, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption)-2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is allowed

ITA 1723/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shankar JalgarFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Singh

Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(a)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

Form 10 filed electronically and with A.O. by the appellant before completion of assessment. 3. Ground No. 3- Re: Refusal to carry out rectification u/s 154: Without prejudice, The learned C.I.T(A) erred in upholding the action of the Income Tax Officer (Exemption)- 2(4), Mumbai, refusing to carry ... rectification u/s 154 on an application made by the appellant in respect of disallowance of deduction u/s 11(2) of the Act. 4. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other.” 3. The relevant facts in brief are that the Appellant is a public charitable trust registered

Gmr Hyderabad International Airport Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result ground II is allowed

ITA 524/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayana, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

disallowance was made by the A.O. based on the formula prescribed under rule 8D of the I.T.Rules, 1962. Subsequently, in rectification u/s 154 of the I.T.Act, the A.O. made disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.3,15,41,178 in computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the I.T.Act. The view taken

K Ranadheer Reddy, Cuddapah vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 264/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy Vs Dcit, Central Circle - 2(1) No.5/19, Kuravapalli (V) C.R. Building, Queen'S Road T. Sundupalli, Cuddapah 516214 Bengaluru 560001 Andhra Pradesh Pan – Amcpr4790E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, Itp Revenue By: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 154Section 156Section 270ASection 271ASection 69Section 69A

issue did not constitute a prima facie mistake apparent from the records. 2 Shri Kasireddy Ranadheer Reddy 4. The impugned order of rectification u/s 154 passed to levy the taxes u/s 115BBE on the addition of Rs.4,28,85,414/- is bad in law: (i). Because, Section

M/S. B B Jewellers and Finance Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 557/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Madhusudhan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234Section 234BSection 250Section 68

mistake apparent and facts on record only discloses an error in accounting entry by the Accountant, which does not warrant a rectification u/s 154 of the I.T.Act. Further, this amount of Rs.30 lakh is prima facie already included in Rs.3.88 crore 10 ITA No.557/Bang/2022. M/s.B.B.Jewellers and Finance Private Limited. while

Hamilton Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO -WD 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Hamilton Industries Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 8 & 9, Ground Floor, Kakad, Chamber, 132, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aaach0375E ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward 7(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Piyush Chhajed, C.A Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 18/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Chhajed, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Prasoon Kabra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 208Section 234CSection 250Section 44A

enhanced by Rs 12, 31,304/- by CPC, Bangalore. 4. In response to the said intimation the assessee had filed an application for rectification u/s 154. This application of the assessee, filed u/s 154 also rejected by CPC Bangalore. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal

Pearl Freight Serv. P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Aksh Jain, ACIT -15(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 31/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepearl Freight Services Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit-15(2)(2) B-106, Great Services Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor Sector – 15, Cbd Belapur Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Navi Mumbai – 400614 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcp1825G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Shruti Mishra Department By : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti MishraFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

gross receipts as per 26AS i.e 48,07,94,395/- which is not the correct amount of original disallowance. We have filed rectification u/s 154 on 25-01-2020 to the effect but till date no rectification order is issued to correct the mistake thereby causing a tax impact

Narayan J. Pagarani, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 659/MUM/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80H

Asst Year: 2001- 02 and that my case was now stronger. Thus, I was again advised in May 2016 to file a rectification u/s 154 with the AO and the same was again filed u/s 154 on 07-06-16. The AO rejected this rectification application vide his order

Narayan J. Pagarani, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 21 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 658/MUM/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh SanghviFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80H

Anil Bhagwan Advani, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4385/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MisraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 251(1)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 55A

direction. Now the second point raised by the appellant is whether after giving appeal effect the AO can do the rectification u/s. 154 of the appeal effect order. I am of the considered opinion that rectification of the OGE (Order giving effect) can be done. Rectification u/s 154

Giraffe Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 9, Mumbai

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

ITA 2663/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegiraffe Developers Pvt Vs. Pr. Cit – 9, Ltd Room No. 214, 2Nd 111, G Wing, Akruti Floor, Aayakar Commercial Complex, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Next To Akruti Centre Churchgate, Point, Central Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn2778D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Madhur Agrawal & Shri.Fenil Bhatt.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri.S.Anbuselvam.DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 40A(2)Section 92D

assessee states that the above is a mistake apparent from records and on account of oversight of the LAO and is subject to rectification u/s 154 of the Act. M/s Giraffe Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. c. Non-levy of Penalty us 27IAA for failure to report the specified domestic transaction

B N Prasanna Kumar, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore

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

ITA 466/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinivas T.Bidari, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69A

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 cannot usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under

M/S Akme Harmony Apartments Owners Welfare Association, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 993/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. D.D. Shamala, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 167BSection 234

short] on 28.12.2015 determining the income of the assessee at Rs.6,59,33,100/-. Subsequently, the AO passed an order of rectification u/s 154 of the Act on 20.4.2016 in order to rectify the computation of tax liability of the assessee by applying the section 167B of the Act. Against

Dosti Reality Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle, 1(1) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 157/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 157/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Circle-1(1)(1), Dosti Realty Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 1St Floor, Lawrence & Mayo Road, Mumbai-400 020 House, 276, Dr. D. N. Road, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccs0746E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rahul Hakani, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ajay Chandra, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 07.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 27.12.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Order Passed U/S 144C

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 154

assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority which is pending for adjudication. In the mean time, assessee has filed an application for rectification u/s 154 before the AO vide letter dated 11.01.2018 inter alia stating as under:- 4 I.T.A. No. 157/Mum/2022 Dosti Realty Ltd. With regard to Finance cost

Hathway Investment P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -12, Mumbai

ITA 1599/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1599/मुं/2020 ("न.व. 2015-16) Hathway Investments Private Limited. Rahejas, 4Th Floor, Corner Of Main Avenue & V.P.Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 054. Pan: Aaach-1675-B ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-12, Mumbai, Room No.127, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ajay Chandra सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/06/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra

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