This compilation indexes 12 recent rulings — spanning multiple ITAT benches (Delhi, Ahmedabad, Chandigarh, Bangalore, Vizag) and the Bombay High Court — in which Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 featured as a central or co-engaged provision. The cases were pronounced between 10 July 2026 and 17 July 2026. The compilation is intended for use by in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a structured, court-wise snapshot of recent Section 154 litigation to anchor their own primary-source research.

Disclaimer: This page is a research index only. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice, tax advice, or any form of professional opinion. Always verify each ruling against the full judgment text and check for subsequent stays, reversals, or appeals before relying on it.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers income-tax authorities — including the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals), and the Appellate Tribunal — to rectify any "mistake apparent from the record" in any order passed by them. An application for rectification may be filed by the assessee or the department, and the authority must pass an order within six months from the end of the month in which the application is received. The scope of rectification is deliberately narrow: it is confined to errors that are obvious, patent, and capable of being corrected without any elaborate reasoning or re-adjudication of debatable points of law or fact.

The 12 rulings

1. Jones Lang Lasalle Property vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 17 July 2026
Sections engaged: 143(2), 143(3), 144C(13), 154, 36(1), 36(1)(va), 43B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the Final Assessment Order dated 25.02.2026 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, for Assessment Year 2022-23, bearing IT(TP)A No. 218/Del/2026. The source preview indicates a dispute concerning the time-limit under section 144C(13) to pass the final assessment order, noting that the DRP directions were issued on 27.12.2025 and the statutory deadline for the final order was 31.01.2026.

2. Dakshaben Jayendra Modi,Ghandhinagar vs Ward 1 , Gandhinagar, Gandhinar

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Date: 17 July 2026
Sections engaged: 143(1), 154, 250
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 685/AHD/2026) relates to Assessment Year 2010-11. Per the source preview, the assessee's grievance included the adjustment of a refund of Rs. 19,309/- pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11 against demands of other assessment years, and the assessee also referred to a CBDT order F.No. 375/02/2023-IT-Budget dated 13/02/2024 concerning the monetary limit of Rs. 25,000/- for extinguishment of tax demands.

3. Dhiraj Rawal,New Delhi vs Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 15 July 2026
Sections engaged: 142(1), 147, 148, 154, 69A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 8785/Del/2025) concerns Assessment Year 2012-13, where the assessee filed a return of income on 28-07-2013 declaring total income of Rs. 2,06,700. Per the source preview, a preliminary issue before the Tribunal was whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming an addition of Rs. 90,00,000, and the assessee also challenged the validity of reopening on the ground that no income had escaped assessment.

4. Vijayant Bhatia,Delhi vs AO Ward 34(5), Range Code 49, Civic

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 15 July 2026
Sections engaged: 132, 144B, 147, 148, 154, 250, 29A, 80G
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 2846/Del/2026) for Assessment Year 2019-20 was directed against the CIT(A) order dated 16.01.2026 passed under section 250, arising from the assessment order dated 03.02.2025 passed under section 147 read with section 144B. The source preview records bank deposits from HDFC (Rs. 2,00,000 dated 25.09.2018) and State Bank of India (Rs. 2,00,000 dated 14.03.2019) as part of the underlying factual matrix before the Tribunal.

5. Kurukshetra University,Haryana vs DCIT(E)(C-2), Chandigarh, Chandigarh

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Date: 15 July 2026
Sections engaged: 10, 139(1), 143(1), 143(1)(a), 154, 44A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 72/Chd/2026) was filed by the assessee against the CIT(A) order dated 12/12/2025 for Assessment Year 2020-21. The source preview is procedural in nature; the appeal was heard in hybrid mode on 24/06/2026 and pronounced on 15/07/2026, with grounds raised by the assessee set out before the Tribunal.

6. Adarsh Sood,Khanna vs ITO Ward 1, Khanna, Punjab

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Date: 15 July 2026
Sections engaged: 115B, 133A, 143(3), 144B, 154
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 38/Chd/2026) for Assessment Year 2019-20 was preferred against the CIT(A) order dated 10.10.2025, which upheld the Assessing Officer's rectification order under section 154 and the consequential levy of tax on surrendered income of Rs. 30,00,000/- at the higher rate. The Registry noted a delay of 8 days in filing the appeal, and the Assessing Officer's Representative opposed the application for condonation of delay, per the source preview.

7. Nilesh Dilip Jagtap vs Divisional Joint Registrar Co

Bench: Bombay High Court
Date: 15 July 2026
Sections engaged: 154, 158
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The matter was heard as Writ Petition No. 2009 of 2025 before the Bombay High Court along with a Review Petition and Interim Application. Per the source preview, the common issue arising for consideration in both the Review Petition and the Writ Petition concerned the authority before which certain proceedings were to be conducted. The judgment was reserved on 8 July 2026 and pronounced on 15 July 2026.

8. Centre For Science And vs DCIT, Circle Exmpt 1(1), Delhi

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 15 July 2026
Sections engaged: 143(1), 154, 2(1)(h)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 8257/DEL/2025) relates to Assessment Year 2021-22. Per the source preview, the assessee's ground included the allegation that the CIT(A) erred in ignoring that the ITR was processed under section 143(1) twice with an incorrect demand raised, and that the final tax was determined only after the CPC passed a rectification order on two occasions pursuant to applications filed by the assessee.

9. Ksrtc Employees Co-Operative Credit vs Income-Tax Officer Ward 7(2) (3)

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Date: 14 July 2026
Sections engaged: 143(1), 154, 250, 57, 80P, 80P(2)(a)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 671/Bang/2026) for Assessment Year 2023-24 was filed against the order dated 22.12.2025 passed under section 250 by the Additional/Joint CIT(A)-1, Chennai. Per the source preview, the solitary grievance of the assessee was against the denial of a deduction claimed under section 80P, making it a case where the Section 154 rectification mechanism intersected with the substantive deduction claim of a cooperative credit society.

10. Bharati Singh,New Delhi vs Assistant Commisioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 14 July 2026
Sections engaged: 139(1), 143(1), 154
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeals (ITA No. 2798/Del/2026 and ITA No. 2799/Del/2026) cover Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10. Per the source preview, the return of income was processed under section 143(1) by the CPC, Bangalore, following which the assessee filed a rectification application that was rejected under section 154 by order dated 22 July 2025. The CIT(A) confirmed that rejection, holding that inclusion of exempt income of Rs. 5,05,407/- under the head "income from other sources" was not a mistake apparent on record.

11. Srikantha Suryadevara,Guntur vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Vizag
Date: 10 July 2026
Sections engaged: 144B, 154, 54F
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 22/Viz/2026) pertains to Assessment Year 2016-17. The source preview is procedural in nature, confirming the hearing concluded on 15 June 2026 with pronouncement on 10 July 2026; the substantive grounds raised by the assessee are not elaborated in the available preview beyond identifying the party details and bench composition.

12. Satya Venu Gopala Rao Kadamati,Usa vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Vizag
Date: 10 July 2026
Sections engaged: 143(1), 154, 205, 250(6)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA 55/VIZ/2026) relates to Assessment Year 2024-25. The source preview is procedural in nature, confirming the hearing concluded on 01 July 2026 and the order was pronounced on 10 July 2026; the specific substantive dispute is not elaborated in the available preview beyond identifying the party details and bench.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Section 154 as co-provision, not standalone: In the majority of these rulings, section 154 appears alongside other provisions — such as sections 143(1), 147, 144B, or 250 — indicating that rectification applications frequently arise in the context of processed intimations, reassessment proceedings, or appellate orders, rather than as entirely independent proceedings.
CPC-processed returns as a recurring trigger: At least two cases in this set (Centre For Science And, Case 8; and Bharati Singh, Case 10) explicitly involve returns processed under section 143(1) by the CPC, where incorrect demands or disputed treatment of income led to rectification applications — suggesting that automated CPC processing continues to generate section 154 litigation.
"Mistake apparent on record" boundary disputes: The Bharati Singh case (Case 10) directly surfaces the recurring question of whether a particular inclusion or exclusion of income in a return constitutes a "mistake apparent on record" under section 154 — a jurisdictional threshold that, per the source preview, was referred to a Supreme Court ruling. This boundary question appears to be a perennial flashpoint in section 154 appeals.
Rectification intersecting with rate of tax disputes: The Adarsh Sood case (Case 6) illustrates that section 154 rectification orders are also used by the department to apply a particular rate of tax to surrendered income, with the assessee challenging the applicable rate — an intersection between rectification procedure and substantive rate disputes that recurs in search-related and survey-related matters.
Multi-bench geography: The 12 rulings span Delhi, Ahmedabad, Chandigarh, Bangalore, and Vizag ITAT benches, as well as the Bombay High Court, confirming that section 154 litigation is geographically distributed and not confined to any single jurisdiction or taxpayer category.

How to use this compilation

This index is a starting point for case identification, not a substitute for reading the full judgment. Each entry above is sourced from the operative portions or header text available in the TaxNoticeAI corpus; the full order will contain reasoning, findings on facts, and any directions that cannot be reproduced here. Researchers should retrieve the complete order from indiankanoon.org or the relevant court portal before citing any ruling in submissions, opinions, or internal research notes.

Before treating any ruling as good law, researchers should check whether the order has been stayed by a higher court, whether an appeal has been filed to the High Court or Supreme Court, and whether any subsequent CBDT circular or instruction has addressed the underlying legal issue. Section 154 jurisprudence is closely connected to procedural timelines and the scope of "mistake apparent on record," both of which are sensitive to the specific facts of each case and should not be generalised across cases without careful analysis.

Finally, where a ruling involves a co-provision — such as section 147, section 80P, or section 144B — researchers should also verify the current state of litigation on that co-provision separately, as a change in the law or a superior court ruling on the co-provision may affect the continued relevance of the section 154 holding in that particular case.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 154 Rectification: 12 Recent ITAT and HC Rulings (2026)