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

Johnson Controls (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8722/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhi.T.A. No.8722/M/2010 (Assessment Year: 2006-2007) I.T.A. No.8855/M/2011 (Assessment Year: 2007-2008) फनाभ/ Johnson Controls (India) Dcit-8(2), Private Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 501-502, Prime Corporate M.K. Road, Mumbai – 40020. Park, Near Itc Grand Maratha, Sahar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 099. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacj3132B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Ms. Rupinder Brar, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2015 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration. These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Involving The Ays 2006-07 & 2007-2008. Since, The Issues Raised In Both These Appeals Either Identical Or Inter-Connected, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Clubbed, Heard Combinedly & Disposed Of In This Consolidated Order. Appeal Wise Adjudication Is Given In The Succeeding Paragraphs Of This Order. 2. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee On 14.12.2010 Against The Orders Of The Drp / Tpo / Ao. In This Appeal, Assessee Raised Four Grounds In Toto. 3. Ground No.1 Relates To The Transfer Pricing Issue. In This Ground, The Issue Needs To Be Adjudicated Is Whether The Profit Split Method (Psm) Is The Most „Appropriate Method‟ When Data Is Not Available On The Cup Method As Most

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Ms. Rupinder Brar, DR

M/S. Ghaziabad Development Authority, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as non- maintainable

ITA 4009/DEL/2015[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2015

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: Na M/S Ghaziabad Development Vs. Commissioner Of Income Authority, C/O- M/S Rra Taxindia Tax (Exemption), 5, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, Ashok Marg, Aayakar New Delhi Bhawan, Lucknow (Pan: Aaalg0072C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Smt. Poonam Ahuja, Adv Respondent By : Sh. A.K. Saroha, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2015 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.05.2015 Passed By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Lucknow Under Section 154 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”), Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Rejecting The Application U/S 154 Filed By The Assessee That Too Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Hearing. Ii. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) Has Erred In Law & On Facts

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Smt. Poonam Ahuja, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 12(1)(a)Section 12ASection 154