Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>ITAT allows appeal against section 154 rectification denying section 80P deduction for lack of apparent mistake</h1> The ITAT Bangalore allowed the assessee's appeal against a rectification order under section 154 denying deduction under section 80P. The AO failed to ... Rectification u/s. 154 - Denial of deduction 80P - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the AO has not brought out single material on record to show that the deduction granted in the assessment order completed is a mistake apparent from the record. The rectification order does not provide for any reason. AO in the show cause notice had referred in the case of Citizen Cooperative society Ltd [2017 (8) TMI 536 - SUPREME COURT] where benefit of deduction u/s. 80P was denied since in the facts of that case assessee was dealing with non-members and had violated the principles of mutuality. AO has also referred to the judgment of case of SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD [2008 (9) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] for the limited proposition that a rectification order can be passed on the basis of subsequent judgment. It is interesting to note that the AO has not referred to the subsequent judgment in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2021 (1) TMI 488 - SUPREME COURT] which was already available when he had issued show cause notice to the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra) has clearly held that to the extent of dealing with non-members, proportionate deduction for the same can be denied. As mentioned earlier, in the instant case the AO while issuing show cause notice for rectification had not mentioned that the assessee had violated the principles of mutuality by dealing with nonmembers. Therefore, the issue is highly debatable and by no stretch of imagination can be termed as a mistake apparent on the record. Only an obvious and patent mistake which can be established not by a long drawn process of reasoning alone can be subjected to rectification proceedings u/s. 154 - In this case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee had violated the principles of mutuality and has been dealing with non-members. Therefore, we are of the view that the issue raised in this appeal is not a mistake apparent on record which is amenable to rectification u/s. 154 - Assessee’s appeal is allowed. Issues involved:- Justification of CIT (Appeals) in confirming the order of the AO denying deduction u/s. 80P of the Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Background and Facts: The appeal was filed against the CIT (Appeals) order for the assessment year 2014-15. The primary issue was the denial of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act amounting to Rs.27,16,210 by the AO through a rectification order u/s. 154.2. AO's Action and CIT (Appeals) Decision: The AO initially allowed the deduction u/s. 80P after scrutiny. However, a notice u/s. 154 was issued proposing to rectify the assessment order to disallow the deduction. The CIT (Appeals) upheld the AO's decision, emphasizing that the appellant was duly informed of the intention to rectify, and the issue was not a mistake apparent from records. The CIT (Appeals) referred to relevant case laws and refused to interfere with the AO's order.3. Tribunal's Assessment: The assessee appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the issue was debatable and not a clear mistake for rectification u/s. 154. The Tribunal noted that the AO's rectification order lacked reasoning or evidence to support the denial of the deduction. The AO had not demonstrated that the deduction was wrongly granted, especially in light of the principles of mutuality and dealing with non-members.4. Legal Precedents and Decision: The Tribunal highlighted the importance of a mistake being apparent on the record for rectification u/s. 154. It referenced the judgment in T.S. Balaram v. Volkart Brothers to emphasize the need for a clear and obvious error for rectification. The Tribunal found that the issue of denying the deduction u/s. 80P was debatable and not a mistake apparent from the record. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, overturning the CIT (Appeals) decision.5. Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision emphasized the requirement for a mistake to be evident on the record for rectification under section 154. In this case, the denial of the deduction u/s. 80P was deemed debatable and not meeting the criteria for rectification. The Tribunal's ruling favored the assessee, highlighting the importance of clear errors for rectificatory actions under the law.6. Judgment: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, overturning the CIT (Appeals) decision to confirm the order of the AO denying the deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. The decision was pronounced in the open court on January 17, 2024.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found