← 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

Maker Towers A & B Co.Op. Hsg Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT WD 17(2) (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri B. V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri M. P. Ahuja (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

reasonable cause for delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The fault of CPC/AO not to dispose of the application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act, cannot come in the way for the assessee’s quest for its claim which Ld. CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated

Bates India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-8, Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection of assessee for A

ITA 1201/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Sanyam Joshi (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 40A(2)(b)

assessment order dated 24.03.2014, which has been quashed by this Tribunal vide order dated 31.08.2021(supra), the foundation for passing rectification u/s 154 of the Act for AY.2007-08 & 2008-09 is non-existing in the eyes of law. In the light of the same, since the foundation for making ... assessment order after reopening for A.Y.2006-07 which has been quashed by the Tribunal as noted (supra). Since the foundation for rectification u/s 154 of the Act for AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 has gone after quashing of the very re-opening, the reassessment order becomes non-est in the eyes

Bates India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-8, Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection of assessee for A

ITA 1200/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Sanyam Joshi (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 40A(2)(b)

assessment order dated 24.03.2014, which has been quashed by this Tribunal vide order dated 31.08.2021(supra), the foundation for passing rectification u/s 154 of the Act for AY.2007-08 & 2008-09 is non-existing in the eyes of law. In the light of the same, since the foundation for making ... assessment order after reopening for A.Y.2006-07 which has been quashed by the Tribunal as noted (supra). Since the foundation for rectification u/s 154 of the Act for AY 2007-08 & 2008-09 has gone after quashing of the very re-opening, the reassessment order becomes non-est in the eyes

M/S. Modus Information Systems Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income-Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 210/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: ---- None ----For Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

Total 1,69,68,498 2 ITA No.210/Bang/2022. M/s.Modus Information Systems Private Limited. 3. The assessee filed online reply on 11.06.2019 requesting for rectification u/s 154 of the I.T.Act. The CPC partly accepted the correction proposed by the assessee by reducing the dividend income of Rs.5,39,501. However

Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT (Central)-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 953/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blemulti Commodity Exchange Of V. Pr.Cit –(Central)-4 India Limited 6Th Floor, Room No. 663 Cts 255, Exchange Square Suren Road Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Chakala Andheri (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400093 Pan: Aadcm8239K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

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

Giriganga Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5 (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7127/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Him. The Cit(Appeals) Has Failed To Appreciate That Addition On A New Issue Of Long Term Capital Gain

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 250(6)

facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the in an appeal against an order of rectification u/s 154 of the Act, the CIT (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to examine the issues which were not part of the rectification order. 4. That ... facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the jurisdiction of the AO while passing order of rectification u/s 154 of the Act was limited to mistake apparent from record and that the claim of 10(38) of the Act could not be subject

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Ltu-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10

ITA 1580/MUM/2020[UNION BANK OF INDIA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)

legal and debatable issue as the matter was decided by various High Courts and accordingly is not a matter of rectification u/s 154. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance u/s 14A without appreciating that appellant being trader is securities has incurred ... u/s 8D(ii) and restricting the disallowances with that extent exempt income. These cannot be said to be a subject matter of rectification u/s 154. Hence, upon careful consideration, we hold that the disallowance is not coming under the realm for rectification of mistake u/s 154 and the AO order

Luxora Infrastructure P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1608/MUM/2020[201-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 68

illegal, invalid and bad in law. 2. There is no mistake apparent from the record in the appellate order dated 31/10/2019 which requires rectification u/s 154 of IT. Act 1961 by Hon'ble CIT(A) - 48. Mumbai. Thus order passed

Sicot India Foundation, Mumbai vs. DCIT(CPC), Mumbai

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

ITA 4328/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Or At, The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal, So As To Enable The Hon. Ita'I To Decide This Appeal According To Law.

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

Rs.10,52,427/- u/s 11 of the Act and computed the total income at Rs. 14,75,500/-. The appellant filed a rectification u/s 154 of the Act, which was rejected by the AO on the ground that as seen from the return of income filed, the assessee has claimed

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ltu, New Delhi

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

ITA 5326/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, 5Th Floor, 9, Cgo Complex, Circle-1, Ltu, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. New Delhi Pan-Aaacm0828R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aditya Chhajed, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Princy Singla, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-15 (2) (2) , Mumbai, 2020 (7) TMI 642 -ITAT MUMBAI, Dated:17July, 2020 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 words

Morgan Ventures Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-14, New Delhi

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

ITA 8238/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aakash Deep Jain & Shri N.K. Billaiyaita No. 8238/Del/2019 [A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 151

neither an unascertained liability and nor a diminution in the value of the Asset. Hence there is a no case of making rectification u/s 154 of the Income tax Act. With reference to disallowance made u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income tax act. 1961, we would like to inform

Rakesh Kumar Pandita, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-24(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6476/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri R.C. Chandiwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 2

same was not adjusted while computing the assessed income. Since there was mistake apparent from record, the assessed sought rectification u/s 154 of the Act. 6. The claim of the assessee was dismissed by the Assessing Officer who was of the opinion that since the assessee has declared income u/s

Agemo Exim Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Meerut

ITA 3517/DEL/2016[1999-2000]Status: HeardITAT Delhi28 Sept 2021AY 1999-2000

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Agemo Exim Ltd, Vs. Ito, (Formerly Agemo Leather Ward-1(1), Components Pvt. Ltd ) Meerut Ashwani Kumar Jain, Managing Director, 82/1, Railway Road, Meerut City, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aabca9965E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Praksh Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80H

already been considered in the impugned order levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore, there is no case for rectification u/s 154 of the Act of penalty order and thus an order dismissing the application of the assessee preferred u/s 154 of the income

Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 185/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Sh.R.M.Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Maninder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154

question of rate at which depreciation is to be allowed raises a debate and is therefore not amenable to the proceedings for rectification u/s 154 of the Act. It is further submitted by the appellant that this issue is also covered in favour of the appellant by the order

B R Agrotech Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6247/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6244/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6245/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6246/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6247/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S B R Agrotech Ltd., Vs Acit, 1505, Vikram Tower, Rajendra Circle-4(1), Place, New Delhi-110008 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb3432F Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.09.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 154

considering the fact and rejecting the appeal by stating that appellant agitated a debatable issue which is not a subject of rectification u/s 154. 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified and grossly erred in non-considering

B R Agrotech Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6246/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6244/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6245/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6246/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6247/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S B R Agrotech Ltd., Vs Acit, 1505, Vikram Tower, Rajendra Circle-4(1), Place, New Delhi-110008 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb3432F Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.09.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 154

considering the fact and rejecting the appeal by stating that appellant agitated a debatable issue which is not a subject of rectification u/s 154. 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified and grossly erred in non-considering

B R Agrotech Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6245/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6244/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6245/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6246/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6247/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S B R Agrotech Ltd., Vs Acit, 1505, Vikram Tower, Rajendra Circle-4(1), Place, New Delhi-110008 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb3432F Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.09.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 154

considering the fact and rejecting the appeal by stating that appellant agitated a debatable issue which is not a subject of rectification u/s 154. 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified and grossly erred in non-considering

B R Agrotech Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6244/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6244/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6245/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6246/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6247/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 M/S B R Agrotech Ltd., Vs Acit, 1505, Vikram Tower, Rajendra Circle-4(1), Place, New Delhi-110008 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb3432F Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.09.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 154

considering the fact and rejecting the appeal by stating that appellant agitated a debatable issue which is not a subject of rectification u/s 154. 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified and grossly erred in non-considering

ACIT, Circle- 19(1), New Delhi vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1811/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri O. P. Kant & Shri K. N. Charya.Y. 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. K. S. V. R. Krishna, CA
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154

reproduced as under: “4.4.2 The appellant, on the other hand, has claimed that this is not a case of rectification u/s 154 as there is no mistake apparent from the record arising out of the order sought to be rectified. The assessment under 143(3} in this case was completed

ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi vs. Smart Analyst India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3436/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & (Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143Section 154Section 92C

effect including the appeal which was filed by the Revenue in respect of order of the CIT(A) relating to rectification u/s 154 of the Act. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed. 7. In result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court