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

Maya Krishnakumar Agrawal, Margao vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, `Bengaluru

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

ITA 30/PAN/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji22 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) Maya Krishnakumaragrawal, Vs Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru. 1St Floor, Anand Bhawan, Old Station Road, Margao, Goa. Pan: Acwpa 7029 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kulkarni, Ar Revenue By : Shri N. Shrikanth, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/08/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals]-2, Panaji (For Short, „Cit(A)‟), Dated 13.09.2021 For A.Y.2019-20 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Panaji, Goa (Hereinafter Referred To As Cit(A)) Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Cit(A) Legally Erred M Holding That The Appellant'S Rectification Application Would Not Fall Within The Scope Of Section 154 Of The Act. Since The Adjustment Made U/S 143 (1) (A) Of The Act Resulting Into An Addition Of Rs. 117,23,809/- Under The Head "Income From Business Or Profession" Was Mainly On Account Of Feeding Errors Crept While Filling Schedule Bp In The Return Of Income, Cit(A) Ought To Have Directed The Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru (Ao) To Entertain The Application Made By The Appellant U/S 154 Of The Act To Correct The Feeding Errors Crept While Filling Schedule Bp Of The Income Tax Return Being Mistakes Apparent From The Record On The Basis Of Material Available On Record. Maya Krishnakumar Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, ARFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154

Dcitm Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Invenire Petrodyne Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1793/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrydcit, Circle - 14(1)(2) M/S. Invenire Petrodyne Ltd. Room No. 455, 4Th Floor The Metropolitan, Plot No. C26/27 E-Block, 5Th Floor, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai 400020 Bandra (East), Mumbai (Mahrashtra ) -400051 Pan – Aaact0090N Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Ld. Sr. Ar Respondent By: None (Adjournment Letter) Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.08.2023 O R D E R Per: N.K. Choudhry, Jm This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2023 Impugned Herein Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For Ay 2014-15. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer (Ao), Vide Order Dated 15.05.2018 Under Section 154 Of The Act, Though Rectified The Original Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C (3) Of The Act, However, Did Not Grant Interest On Refund Arising Out Of The Self-Assessment Tax Paid By The Assessee Under Section 244A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Ld. Sr. ARFor Respondent: None (Adjournment letter)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)(aa)Section 250

Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. ITO, Ward-TDS, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 67/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 Marble Kingdom India Private Income Tax Officer, 365, Lodha Complex, Shashtri Vs Ward-Tds, Circle, Udaipur Udaipur Pan: Jdhm06807D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2013-14 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 31.12.2019 Passed By Income Tax Officer (Tds), Udaipur. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Under Section 154 Of The Act Against The Order Under Section 200A. Assessee Requested The Ito To Rectify The Levy Of Fee Charged Under Section 234E Of The Act. The Ld. Ito Rejected The Application On The Ground That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent From Record As It Is A Debatable Issue. The Relevant Paragraph Of The Order Is Reproduced Here As Under:- Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. “3. On-Going Through The Record It Is Noticed That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent On Record & Issue Is Debatable & Also Not Covered U/S 154 Of The Act. Thus The Contention Of The Deductor/Assessee Is Not Tenable Because The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Has Dismissed The Appeals In The Case Of M/S Dundlod Shikdhan Sansthan & Anr. V/S Union Of India & Ors. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8672/2014 Dated 28.07.2015 On This Issue. Hence Considering The Facts Of The Case & Decision Of Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court The Application Filed By The Assessee U/S 154 Is Rejected Accordingly.”

Section 154Section 200ASection 23Section 234ESection 250

M/S. Regent Hotels, Rourkela vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalure

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

ITA 212/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack16 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.212/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Regent Hotel, Vs Ito, Ward-5, Rourkela Bisra Road, Rourkela-769011 Pan No. :Aakfr 4838 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051193390(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 11 Days, For Which The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition, Wherein He Has Mentioned That Delay Was On Account Of Sickness Of Wife Of The Partner Of Assessee. The Reason Filed By The Assessee Has Not Been Found To Be False. Consequently, The Delay Of 11 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits. 3. A Perusal Of The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Shows That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee On Account Of Delay. A Further Perusal Of The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Shows That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Reckoned The Delay From The Date Of The Intimation. However, The Appeal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 154