Income Tax : Judicial rulings clarify that Section 54 focuses on timely investment of capital gains, not rigid legal ownership milestones. The ...
Income Tax : The ITAT held that an assessment completed before receiving the DVO report under section 50C(2) is invalid. All additions and disa...
Income Tax : Understand the statutory time limits for filings, applications, approvals, and settlement processes under the Income-tax Act, incl...
Income Tax : Learn the scope, time limits, and procedure for correcting mistakes apparent from records under Section 154, including appeal rest...
Income Tax : Faceless Income-tax proceedings and e-assessments under Section 144B simplify taxpayer compliance. Use the e-filing portal for ele...
Income Tax : KSCAA has made a Representation on Challenges in Income Tax Related to Rectification Proceedings, Order Giving Effect, Delay in P...
Income Tax : Even after due efforts taken by the Government to ensure compliance relating to filing of TDS returns by the deductors, the defaul...
Income Tax : Taxpayers who are not satisfied with the outcome of processing of their Income Tax Return by the Centralized Processing Centre, Be...
Income Tax : Department introduces new facility for online submission of rectification request in cases where processing was completed by CPC B...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad held that addition of Rs. 13 lakh under Section 69A through rectification proceedings exceeded the scope of Section...
Income Tax : Tribunal held that deduction for bad debts is allowable in the year in which the debts are actually written off in the books of ac...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that the Assessing Officer could not alter book profit under Section 115JB by disallowing losses from alleged ...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that Form 3CL issued by DSIR could not be treated as additional evidence during rectification proceedings since i...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi held that lawful TDS credit cannot be denied merely because the Assessing Officer overlooked an earlier rectification o...
Income Tax : Taxpayers who are not satisfied with the outcome of processing of their Income Tax Return by the Centralized Processing Centre, Be...
Income Tax : Instruction No. 02/2016 Section 154 of the Act mandates that rectification order shall be passed in writing by the Income Tax auth...
Income Tax : Instruction No. 01/2016 section 154 stipulates that where application for amendment is made by assessee/deductor/collector with a...
Income Tax : 225/148/2015-ITA-II Expeditious disposal of applications for rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) dur...
Income Tax : INSTRUCTION NO. 3/2013 Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide Judgment in case of Court On its Own Motion v. UOI and Ors. in W.P. (C) 2659/...
In the case of KKJ Foundations vs. ADIT it was held by High court of Kerala that It is a settled proposition of law that rectification is a process by which a mistake is set at right. It thus means correcting an error which was apparent from record
Understanding Rectification of Mistake under Section 154 of Income Tax Act, 1961 There is no doubt that anybody can cause/effect/commit a mistake ‘inadvertently’ while reading, understanding, interpreting & writing, or during drafting, dictating, or taking note, translating from shorthand, typing, computing, etc. Considering this factor, the makers of Income Tax Law have kept open a […]
In the case Vinod Kumar Surana Vs. ITO the Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT held that the fact of withdrawal of deduction u/ 80IB of the Act in the subsequent years when the same were duly granted by the ld. AO in the initial assessment years per se becomes a debatable issue and hence same cannot be dealt in the proceedings u/s 154
Assessee claimed deductions on account of excise duty paid and interest thereon which was originally allowed by AO but subsequently rectified u/s 154 by making addition of the same. ITAT examined the facts
Mistake apparent on the record u/s 154 must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions.
Tribunal in this above case decided two debatable issues. Firstly that the mistake can be rectified after assessment attained finality and assessee had accepted the assessment order. The same is decided by the tribunal in the light of decision of apex court.
Karnataka High Court held In the case of K.S. Venkatesh vs. DCIT that The Hon’ble Apex Court in T.S.Balaram Vs Volkart Brothers and others reported in 1971 (82) ITR 50 has observed that a mistake apparent on the record must be obvious and patent mistake and not something
Income Tax law provides an exhaustive, encyclopedic and compendious machinery to deal with the issues of what can be conceived and what can be believed with regard to the jurisprudence of taxing the subject as a whole. In this profitable and solvent venture of taxing the subject through the route of his due filings with the respective authorities and agencies designated and deputed by the government
225/148/2015-ITA-II Expeditious disposal of applications for rectification under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) during the Financial Year 2015-16 – reg.- Union Finance Minister in his key-note address has also exhorted the Income-tax Department to be prompt in redressing the grievances of taxpayers. It has been a matter of concern that the rectification applications as 154 filed by the taxpayers before the field officers are not being dealt with promptly.
In the case of Cardinal Drugs Pvt Ltd.Hon’ble ITAT has observed that there was no scope for the A.O. to have resorted to the provision of Section 154 of the Act for the purpose of enhancing the income of the assessee.by stating as under:- The A.O. on long drawn process of reasoning should not have passed the order under Section154 of the Act. The issue raised by the A.O. in proceeding under Section 154 of the Act is highly debatable which requires the issue to be reconsidered by the A.O.about applicability of the provision of Section 115JB of the Act which was notraised by the A.O. in assessment or appellate proceedings.
