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

ITO 16(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Nayan Rasiklal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1796/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri M. K. Agarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1796/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-16(2)(2), Nayan Rasiklal Shah, बनाम/ Matru Mandir, 3-8, 15-B, Aruna Niwas, Mumbai-400 007 Lady Pochkanwala Road, Vs. Sleater Road, Mumbai-400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aajps 8347 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri J. P. Jangid ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 03.11.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 11.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, J. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 27.12.2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-28, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Effective Grounds Raised By The Department Are As Under: 1. Whether On Facts & Circumstances & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition U/S. 50C Of The I. Tax Act Which Is Deeming Provision & Does Not Provide Scope To Take Recourse To Valuation Report When Price Determined By Stamp Duty Authority Of The State Is Higher Than The Sale Value Or Cost Realized By The Seller? 2. Whether On Facts & Circumstances & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting Assessing Officer To Adopt The Valuation By Dvo, Which Was Not Called For By Assessing Officer & Further

For Appellant: Shri J. P. JangidFor Respondent: None
Section 154Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54E

Destimoney India Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the both the appeals filed by the assessee is hereby

ITA 3055/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3055/Mum/15 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बनाम/ Destimoney India Services The Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax – 6 Vs. Shop No.5, Ground Floor, Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Sahjeevan Chs, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Joshi Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai – 400013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd1326K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3056/Mum/15 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बनाम/ Destimoney Enterprises The Commissioner Of Ltd. (Formerly Known As Income Tax – 6 Vs. Destimoney Enterprises Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd.) Aaykar Bhavan, Shop No.5, Ground Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Sahjeevan Chs, N.M.Joshi Marg, Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai – 400013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd5100F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prakash Kotadia Department By: Shri P. R. Ghosh

For Appellant: Shri Prakash KotadiaFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Ghosh
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68