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

Biwanath Lohia, Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-48(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1289/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1289/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2006-2007) Biswanath Lohia, Huf, Vs. Ito, Ward-48 (3), 171/1, Jn Mukherjee Road, 3, Govt. Place(W) Salkia, Howrah-6, Kolkata-700001 C/O: Sri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate, 19-D, Muktaram Babu Street, Kolkata-700007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaehb 6352 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nirmal Kaushik, Advocate Revenue By : Md. Ghyas Uddin, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05/01/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata, In Appeal No.15/Cit(A)-14Wd-47(3)/2011-12, Dated 28.04.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3)/154 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 28.03.2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 8.11.2006 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,05,810/-. Asessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making Various Additions. Later On, The Assessing Officer Passed The Rectification Order Under Section 154 Of The Act Observing That Deduction U/S 24(A) Of The I.T. Act Was Wrongly Allowed To The Assessee. Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee Is Not Owner Of Any House Property & An Amount Received By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Nirmal Kaushik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Ghyas Uddin, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 24