Section 154 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.287

Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 287 (Rectification of mistake) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 287 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 154 is Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI (73 Taxmann.com 252), cited in 1,778 of the 8,676 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 154

Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI
73 Taxmann.com 252 · 2016 · High Court
1,778
citing judgments

Late fees under section 234E are not applicable for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to section 200A inserting clause (c) was effective from that date.

Kourani v. Union OF India
83 Taxmann.com 137 · 2017 · High Court
1,708
citing judgments

The fee under Section 234E for late filing of TDS/TCS statements cannot be levied retrospectively by processing an intimation under Section 200A for defaults occurring before the amendment allowing such processing.

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. v. UOI
289 CTR 602 · 2016 · High Court
844
citing judgments

A fee under Section 234E cannot be levied or adjusted in an intimation under Section 200A for TDS statements pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect only from that date.

ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.
82 Taxmann.com 415 · 2017 · High Court
789
citing judgments

Disallowance computed under Section 14A, read with Rule 8D, cannot be added to book profits under Section 115JB for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes. Additionally, for Section 14A disallowance, only investments that yielded exempt income during the year are considered for calculating their average value.

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India
54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court
702
citing judgments

Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.

Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT
394 ITR 449 · 2017 · Supreme Court
683
citing judgments

Expenditure can only be disallowed under Section 14A if the income is exempt and not part of the total income. The Assessing Officer must first record dissatisfaction with the assessee's accounts or computation before proceeding to make a disallowance under Section 14A or applying Rule 8D.

Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd. v. UOI
440 ITR 26 · 2022 · High Court
614
citing judgments

The fee under Section 234E of the Income-tax Act cannot be levied for defaults in filing TDS statements committed prior to June 1, 2015, as the provision for its levy became effective only from that date.

CIT v. Manu Engg
122 ITR 306 · 1980 · High Court
505
citing judgments

When levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. An ambiguous notice or order using "and/or" for these limbs, or a standard proforma without striking irrelevant clauses, indicates non-application of mind and renders the penalty unsustainable.

ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.
305 ITR 227 · 2008 · Supreme Court
470
citing judgments

Non-consideration of a decision by a jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. However, non-consideration of a non-jurisdictional High Court decision does not typically amount to such a mistake.

Judgments on Section 154

Anand Construwell Private Limited, Nashik vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik -1, Nashik

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

ITA 955/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.955/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Anand Construwell Private Vs. Pcit-1, Nashik. Limited, Ramchandra Apartments, Makhmalabad Road, Panchvati, Nashik- 422003. Pan : Aafca7736H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Pcit-1, Nashik [‘Ld. Pcit’] For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Basis Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed U/S. 263 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nashik May Please Be Quashed. 2. On The Basis Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Is Not Justified In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 By Holding That Provisions Of Section 69C Are Applicable In The Present Case As The Assessee Was Not Able To Explain The Sources Of Expenditure

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 69C

Gursharan Kaur, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4270/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Gursharan Kaur Ito Ward 24 (1)(1) A-301, Skylark Chs, Opp. Vikram Piramal Chamber, Mumbai – Petrol Pump A Bunglows Juhu Versova Vs. 400012. Link Road, 4 Bunglow Andheri West Mumbai -400 053 Pan/Gir No. Bkopk8032M (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Tejas Chandrana Respondent By : Mr. Tushar Mohite Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short),National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Following Grounds Of Appeal Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1. The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Order Passed By Central Processing Center ("Cpc") U/S 154 Of The Act. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Cpc Of Denying Relief U/S 90/90A Due To Late Filing Of Form 67. 3. The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Levy Of Interest U/S. 234B & 234C Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri. Tejas ChandranaFor Respondent: Mr. Tushar Mohite Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 90