INTELENET GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 12(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Intelenet Global Services Pvt. Acit – 12(2), 145, Aaykar Ltd; Intelenet Towers, Plot Cst No. Vs. Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Marg, 1406-A/28, Mindspace, Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 090. Pan No. Aaaci7387P (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri S.K Tyagi, A.R Revenue By : Shri V. Sreekar, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021

68 of the Act, the same could not be added by the AO in the computation of income, in the impugned order under section 154 of the Act. 6. The Id. CIT(A) grossly erred in not cancelling the impugned order of rectification on the ground that the issue involved therein was a highly debatable one, which was not apparent

TRANS UNION LLC,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

68, clarified only with respect to section 154 that the subsequent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as a mistake apparent on record which is directly applicable to assessee’s case and the circular being binding with respect to rectification u/s

TRANS UNION LLC,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

68, clarified only with respect to section 154 that the subsequent decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as a mistake apparent on record which is directly applicable to assessee’s case and the circular being binding with respect to rectification u/s

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, LTU(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

section 154(7). 1.2 Without prejudice to above contention CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the issue of restriction of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) is a highly legal and debatable issue and cannot be a matter of rectification u/s 154. 2 Union Bank of India On Merits 2.1 The Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that eligible amount

VERTEX SPINNING LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result ground no. 1 and 2

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Vertex Spinning Limited 1011, 10Th Floor, Embassy Centre, 207, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan:Aabcv5617N ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(3) 573, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

68 years and suffering with age related health issues also presently residing at Indore (M.P.). Immediately after receiving order of Ld. CIT (A), copy of order was sent to the Chartered Accountant of assessee, Mr. Chetan Pagaria. But as the CA of the assessee was busy in filing his tax returns and other compliances of clients he has; this issue

TRANS UNION LLC,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

68,\nclarified only with respect to section 154 that the subsequent decisions of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court as a mistake apparent on record which is directly applicable\nto assessee's case and the circular being binding with respect to rectification u/s

TRANS UNION LLC,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1)(2), MUMBAI

68,\nclarified only with respect to section 154 that the subsequent decisions of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court as a mistake apparent on record which is directly applicable\nto assessee's case and the circular being binding with respect to rectification u/s

NULUX ENGINEERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 20(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2073/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2001-02) बिाम/ Nulux Engineers Dcit Cir 20(2) 5-Beach Queen, Mumbai 33- J.P Road, Versova, V. Mumbai-400061 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaafn1423C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Manish Shah Revenue By : Shri. D.G Pansari , Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2073/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 02.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-39, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2001-02, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Order Dated 30.08.2013 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2001-02. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee In The Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Tribunal”) Read As Under:-

u/s. 154 of the Act. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand in rejoinder relied upon CBDT circular no. 68 dated 17.11.1971 reproduced here under:- “ Section 154- Rectification

DY CIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. KALPANA MUKESH RUIA, MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

154 ITR 148) • ACIT Vs. Som Nath Mani (100 TTJ 917) • Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT (34 ITR 807) • Sreelekha Banerjiee & Others Vs. CIT (49 ITR 112) • Kalekhan Mohameed Hanif Vs. CIT (50 ITR 1) • CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik (160 ITR 674) • CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala & Others (291 ITR 278) 8. Thereafter he referred to Hon'ble Bombay High Court

KALPNA MUKESH RUIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

154 ITR 148) • ACIT Vs. Som Nath Mani (100 TTJ 917) • Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT (34 ITR 807) • Sreelekha Banerjiee & Others Vs. CIT (49 ITR 112) • Kalekhan Mohameed Hanif Vs. CIT (50 ITR 1) • CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik (160 ITR 674) • CIT Vs. P. Mohanakala & Others (291 ITR 278) 8. Thereafter he referred to Hon'ble Bombay High Court

DCIT, 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VEDHAS REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

68 of the Act by an amount of Rs.3,30,00,000 and further, reduced the disallowance of interest payment under section 69C of the Act by an amount of Rs.2,75,950. Further, vide suo moto rectification order dated 07/01/2019 passed under section 154 of the Act, the AO enhanced the disallowance in respect of Pazel International

ABDULLA MOHAMED YUSUF PATEL,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

rectification order under section 154 of the act dated 18/03/2023 the total income of the appellant for the year was rectified 18/03/2023 the total income of the appellant for the year was rectified 18/03/2023 the total income of the appellant for the year was rectified to Rs. 1,24,71,710/ to Rs. 1,24,71,710/- instead

ABDULLA MOHAMED YUSUF PATEL ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 20(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

rectification order under section 154 of the act dated 18/03/2023 the total income of the appellant for the year was rectified 18/03/2023 the total income of the appellant for the year was rectified 18/03/2023 the total income of the appellant for the year was rectified to Rs. 1,24,71,710/ to Rs. 1,24,71,710/- instead

RAMACHANDRAN A. POTHI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 24 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 7268/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) Shri Ramachandran A Pothi The Jt. Commissioner Of 513, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Income Tax, Circle 24(2) फनाभ/ 4 Th Industrial Estate Andheri West, Room No.504, Floor, Mumbai-400 053 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aacpp8620K अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Rushabh Mehta, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhle, Sr. Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08.10.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-36, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Mumbai-36/11494/2016-17 Vide Dated 30.10.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 24(2), Mumbai (In Short Jcit/ Ao) For The A.Y. Shri Ramachandran A Pothi; Ay 09-10 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 29.11.2011 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’).

rectification u/s. 154 stating it as a "typing error" where the assessment was already concluded and attained finality vide order dated 29.11.2011. (d) The ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in accepting the version of the ld. Assessing Officer to treat a "typing error" in initiating Shri Ramachandran A Pothi; AY 09-10 penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) as a mistake

DCIT, CIRCLE-14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VEDHAS REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

68 of the Act by an amount of Rs.3,30,00,000\nand further, reduced the disallowance of interest payment under section 69C\nof the Act by an amount of Rs.2,75,950. Further, vide suo moto rectification\norder dated 07/01/2019 passed under section 154 of the Act, the AO enhanced\nthe disallowance in respect of Pazel International

METAL ROLLING WORKS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-47, MUMBAI

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ravish Sood (Jm)

rectification order passed by AO u/s 154 of the Act for the assessment year 2002-03. 2. The facts relating to the case are discussed in brief. The assessee company is engaged in the business of converting Aluminum ingots into Circles, strips, wire rods etc. The assessment of the year under consideration was completed by the assessing officer

CLE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

rectification order u/s, 154. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the specific ground with respect to addition u/s. 68 being made for, computing book profits u/s. 115JB could not be raised in the appeal filed before itself since the computation of book

CLE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

rectification order u/s, 154. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the specific ground with respect to addition u/s. 68 being made for, computing book profits u/s. 115JB could not be raised in the appeal filed before itself since the computation of book