“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

Ny Green Energy Private Limited Formely Know As Sunkon Energy Pvt Ltd, Surat vs. DCIT Circle 2(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/SRT/2025[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Surat18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: MS SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44ASection 80Section 80I

appellant for AY 2017-18 was processed by CPC on 04.02.2019. Against the said intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, appellant filed rectification u/s 154 of the Act, which was also rejected by the CPC. The appellant had claimed deduction u/s 80-IA, which was not allowed

Nirmala Nawal Phatarphekar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2516/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(1)Section 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

Nesco Employees Gratuity Fund Trust, Balasore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Balasore

ITA 159/CTK/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nihar Ranjan Biswal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(24)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

without considering the fact that the income of the assesse is exempted u/s 10(25(iii). Therefore rejection of rectification u/s 154 by not considering the exemption is bad in law. Therefore the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be set aside. 4. For that ... without considering the fact that the Assessee is not required to file income Tax Return U/s 139(1). Therefore rejection of rectification u/s 154 by not considering that the assesse is not required to file the Return is bad in law. Therefore the order passed

Sarnath Co-Op Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2550/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan1. Ita No. 2548/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 2549/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 2550/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2020-21) Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. 59-B, Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Breach Candy, Mumbai-400 026 Pan: Aaaas3230K Ito Ward 15(1)(4), Vs. Mumbai. (Appellant) Assessee Represented By Department Represented By Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : : : : (Respondent) Shri Pawan Choudhary, Ld. Ar Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. Dr.) 02.07.2025 16.07.2025 Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan (J.M.): 1. These Appeals Are Filed By The Appellant/Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.02.2025 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/Jcit (A)-4, Hyderabad [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)"], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act"] For The A.Y. 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2020-21 Respectively, Wherein The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Dismissed Being Barred By Limitation & The Ld. Cit(A) Has Refused To Condone The Delay Stating That The Assessee Has Failed To Show Sufficient Cause For Condonation Of Delay. 2. Since The Facts Of All The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Exactly Same, Parties Are Same, Also The Order Of The Same Date & The Matter Involved Is Also Similar Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Disallowance Of Interest Amount Earned From Deposit Of Interest With The Cooperative Banks & Was Claimed As Deduction U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act For The Different

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

management and staff. Although the return was processed and an intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act was received, The rectification u/s 154 was filed for 3 Assessment years out of Appeal filed for 4 Assessment year, since an application against 143(1) order was pending

Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2549/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

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

management and staff. Although the return was processed and an intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act was received, The rectification u/s 154 was filed for 3 Assessment year out of Appeal filed for 4 Assessment year, since an application against 143(1) order was pending

Sarnath Co-Op Housing Society Ltd, Bhulabhai Desai vs. CIT(Appeal), Piramal Chamber

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2548/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan1. Ita No. 2548/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2013-14) 2. Ita No. 2549/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 2550/Mum/2025 (A.Y: 2020-21) Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. 59-B, Sarnath Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Breach Candy, Mumbai-400 026 Pan: Aaaas3230K Ito Ward 15(1)(4), Vs. Mumbai. (Appellant) Assessee Represented By Department Represented By Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement (Respondent) Shri Pawan Choudhary, Ld. Ar Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. Dr.) 02.07.2025 16.07.2025 Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan (J.M.): 1. These Appeals Are Filed By The Appellant/Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.02.2025 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/Jcit (A)-4, Hyderabad [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)"], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act"] For The A.Y. 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2020-21 Respectively, Wherein The Appeals Of The Assessee Are Dismissed Being Barred By Limitation & The Ld. Cit(A) Has Refused To Condone The Delay Stating That The Assessee Has Failed To Show Sufficient Cause For Condonation Of Delay. 2. Since The Facts Of All The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Exactly Same, Parties Are Same, Also The Order Of The Same Date & The Matter Involved Is Also Similar Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Disallowance Of Interest Amount Earned From Deposit Of Interest With The Cooperative Banks & Was Claimed As Deduction U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act For The Different

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

management and staff. Although the return was processed and an intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act was received, The rectification u/s 154 was filed for 3 Assessment year out of Appeal filed for 4 Assessment year, since an application against 143(1) order was pending

DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Go Airlines(India) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4612/MUM/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ujjval Gangwal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT, D/R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 154

pursuant to the intimation dated 17/01/2023 u/s 143(1) of the Act made by the CPC, Bengaluru, the assessee preferred an application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act and that rectification application has been allowed by the CPC. The order of rectification is placed at pages

Surya Laxmi Industries, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5103/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshsurya Laxmi Industries, Vs. Dcit, 7-B, Bigjos Tower, Netaji New Delhi Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abwfs8662D Assessee By : Shri Lalit Mohan, Adv Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv Revenue By: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80I

denying the claim of deduction of Rs. 35,88,719/- u/s 80IC of the Act. The assessee preferred rectification u/s 154 of the Act before ld CPC against the denial of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act on the ground that no opportunity was given

M/S Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

10. In view of the above discussion and findings, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) is set aside whereby disallowance of bonus to the tune of Rs

ITA 279/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, While Challenging Order Dated 25.07.2022 Issued U/S 154 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Came To Be Dismissed, While Observing As Under:- “5.6 In View Of The Above, Mandatory Condition Of Making The Payment Of The Employees Contribution To The Pf & Esi Funds Within 15 Days Of The Close Of Every Month, Has Not Been Fulfilled By The Appellant So As To Be Entitled For Claim Of Deduction U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act. Accordingly, The Ao’S Action Of Disallowing The Amount On Account Of Disallowance Of Bonus Amount Of Rs. 14,03.,538/- & 2 M/S Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Ltd., Jaipur. Employees Contrition To Pf Of Rs. 5,172/- Is Hereby Confirmed & Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Appellant Are Treated As Dismissed.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 44A

u/s 143(1) dated 16.10.2022; 4 M/S Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Ltd., Jaipur.  Copy of acknowledgment of return dt. 04.01.2022;  Copy of Application for Rectification u/s 154;  Copy of following documents relating to the payment of bonus before due date of filing the return:-  Kotak bank statement of assessee.  Ledger account

Shobha Suman Mishra, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

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

ITA 576/JPR/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.576/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2014-15 Shobha Suman Mishra 5/6, B Block, Keshav Marg, Panchsheel, Ajmer-305 001 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward 2(2) Ajmer प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AGCPS7545N निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Sanjeev Jain, CA राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 69A

facts of the case by not providing complete order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed on 13/09/2024, for which Rectification u/s 154 was filed by the assessee. 2) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in law as well as on facts of the case

Ravindra Dnyaneshwar Bhujbal, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 14(5), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 25/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

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

employees' contribution towards Provident Fund & ESIC on the basis of details provided in the audit report. Thereafter, the assessee filed an application for rectification u/s 154 of the IT Act and consequently the order u/s 154 was passed by CPC on 12.10.2023 wherein the disallowance u/s

Maya Sikshan Prashikshan Sansthan, Mendu Road Hathras vs. Income Tax Officer, Hathras

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/AGR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Maya Sikshan Ward-(3)(4), Prashikshan Sansthan, Vs. Hathras. Ravinder Singh Prakash Textile Compound, Mendu Road, Hathras-204101 Pan-Aaabm5383N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

receipt of the assessee society without allowing any deduction towards the application of income as claimed. 3. Against such order, the application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act was filed by the assessee before the CPC wherein it was claimed that inadvertently the claim was made u/s

Oplus Steel and Power Private Limited (Formerly Known As Swati Concast & Power Private Limited), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 698/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 147Section 154

merit not on technical issue, the delay is hereby condoned. 2. Brief facts of the case of the assessee is that the rectification u/s 154 of the Act was passed by the AO by making an addition of Rs. 11,04,04,747/-. 3. Aggrieved with the said rectification order

M/S. Oplus Steel and Power Private Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Swati Concast & Power Private Limited), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 673/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 147Section 154

M/S. Rmz Infinity (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. PCIT-4, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/CHNY/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.511/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S.Rmz Infinity(Chennai) Pvt. Ltd, The Principal Commissioner Of No.110, Mount Poonamallee Road, Income Tax-4, Porur, Porur S.O, Circle-1, Ltu, Kanchipuram Dist, Chennai Tamil Nadu-600 116. [Pan: Aaacd2287R]

For Appellant: Shri B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 263

Subsequently, the assessee moved petition u/s. 154 dated 27.12.2010, 02.07.2018 and 19.02.2019. In the impugned rectification petitions, the assessee had requested for rectification u/s 154 towards following issues:- i) That in the order u/s.143(1) capital gains has been calculated while omitting to consider cost of acquisition of Rs.2 ... dated 04.11.2010 after a gap of nearly 12 years. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that it had made a request for rectification u/s 154 long back on 27.12.2010. It is the case of the assessee that as there was no action, it filed another request for rectification

Kanya Gurukul Shiksha Samiti, Nilokheri vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ambala

The appeal stand dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1/CHANDI/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 1/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Kanya Gurukul Shiksha Samiti Ito (Exemption) बनाम/ Anjanthali Nilokheri Aaykar Bhawan 2Nd Floor B. C. Bazaar Haryana132021 Vs. Ambala Cantt-133001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaffk-8836-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri S. B. Gupta (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. During Hearing Of Captioned Appeal, It Transpires That The Return Of Income As Filed By The Assessee Was Initially Processed U/S 143(1). The Assessee Filed Rectification U/S 154 Which Was Disposed-Off By Cpc On 15-12-2022. The Assessee Preferred First Appeal Against This Order Which Was Disposed-Off Vide Order Dated 09-09-2024 Wherein Ld. Ao Was Directed To Allow Certain Expenditure. In The Set-Aside Proceedings, Ld. Ao Re-Determined Income Of Rs.19.49 Lacs Vide Order Dated 06-11-2024. Against This Order, The Assessee Has Filed

For Appellant: Shri S. B. Gupta (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154

captioned appeal, it transpires that the return of income as filed by the assessee was initially processed u/s 143(1). The assessee filed rectification u/s 154 which was disposed-off by CPC on 15-12-2022. The assessee preferred first appeal against this order which was disposed-off vide order

Sgj Enterprises Private Limited, Patiala vs. DCIT, Circle, Patiala

In the result, the appeal was dismissed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us

ITA 645/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No. 645/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S Sgj Enterprises Private Limited Dcit-Circle Patiala बनाम/ D-197 Focal Point Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Patiala 147001 Patiala "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aancs-8860-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020- 21 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Fearless Appeals Centre Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 22- 12-2023 In The Matter Of Rectification Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 154 Of The Act On 21-06-2022. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Application Of Correct Rate Of Tax. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of 93 Days In The Appeal Which Stands Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154

rate of 30% as applicable to companies. On the other hand, the assessee had applied concessional rate of 25%. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred rectification u/s 154 which was also rejected by CPC vide intimation dated 21-06-2022. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal on the ground that

Prasad Anoop Surkund, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Circle-42(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4794/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

raised which includes tax of Rs. 4,57,891/- and interest of Rs. 1,08,389/- 6. Application for rectification u/s 154 was filed on 26- 02-2019. The request was considered and accordingly, the rectification order u/s 154 was passed by Ld AO on 11.03.2019 stating: 3 Assessment Year ... With respect to your application for rectification u/s 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2012-13 filed in this office on 25.02.2019, it transpires that you have not claimed relief u/s 90/91 in your return of income. Further it is also evident that during the year, you were

Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 286/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 32

Though the assessee did not file any appeal against this Intimation u/s 143(1), an application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act was filed to the Ld. AO within the time permissible u/s 154 of the Act for seeking redressal of the grievances arising out of the two adjustments ... Being aggrieved by rejection, the assessee filed appeal to Ld. CIT(A) and technically such appeal happened to be against the order of rectification u/s 154 and not against the original Intimation u/s 143(1). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee in limine by observing in Para

Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 285/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 32