← 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

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

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 2568/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

Spirit Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 17, New Delhi

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1871/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. Roli Chaubey, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT (DR)
Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

appeals the common ground raised by the appellant assessee reads as under:- 1. “That in rejecting the application for rectification u/s 154, the Learned CIT (A) has erred in facts inasmuch as he has failed to correctly interpret the provision of law as applicable to the facts of the case ... failed to judiciously and responsibility exercise the powers granted to him under the Income Tax Act. 3. That in rejecting the application for rectification u/s 154, the Learned CIT (A) has, based on fact of the case, acted injudiciously and unlawfully and against the principles of natural justice. 4. That

Spirit Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 17, New Delhi

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1870/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. Roli Chaubey, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT (DR)
Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

appeals the common ground raised by the appellant assessee reads as under:- 1. “That in rejecting the application for rectification u/s 154, the Learned CIT (A) has erred in facts inasmuch as he has failed to correctly interpret the provision of law as applicable to the facts of the case ... failed to judiciously and responsibility exercise the powers granted to him under the Income Tax Act. 3. That in rejecting the application for rectification u/s 154, the Learned CIT (A) has, based on fact of the case, acted injudiciously and unlawfully and against the principles of natural justice. 4. That

Spirit Global Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1869/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. Roli Chaubey, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT (DR)
Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

appeals the common ground raised by the appellant assessee reads as under:- 1. “That in rejecting the application for rectification u/s 154, the Learned CIT (A) has erred in facts inasmuch as he has failed to correctly interpret the provision of law as applicable to the facts of the case ... failed to judiciously and responsibility exercise the powers granted to him under the Income Tax Act. 3. That in rejecting the application for rectification u/s 154, the Learned CIT (A) has, based on fact of the case, acted injudiciously and unlawfully and against the principles of natural justice. 4. That

Spirit Global Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1868/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. Roli Chaubey, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT (DR)
Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

appeals the common ground raised by the appellant assessee reads as under:- 1. “That in rejecting the application for rectification u/s 154, the Learned CIT (A) has erred in facts inasmuch as he has failed to correctly interpret the provision of law as applicable to the facts of the case ... failed to judiciously and responsibility exercise the powers granted to him under the Income Tax Act. 3. That in rejecting the application for rectification u/s 154, the Learned CIT (A) has, based on fact of the case, acted injudiciously and unlawfully and against the principles of natural justice. 4. That

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. Ansal Properties & Ind. P.Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 68 / 2008HC Delhi24 Jul 2008

Bench: 01.06.2006, The Effective Date Of Insertion Of The Proviso In Section 113 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ? 2008:Dhc:2126-Db

For Appellant: Mr R. D Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr Satyan Sethi with Mr Johnson Bara, Advocates
Section 113Section 132Section 154Section 158Section 263

view rightly, that apart from the fact that the issue is debatable and no such order could have been passed in rectification u/s 154 of the Act, even on merits, the proviso to Section 113 of the Act did not have any retroactive effect. The proviso was inserted with effect