BHIM SINGH,KOTA vs. DCIT, C-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

u/s 154 which has been rejected. Further the assessee claimed TDS credit of Rs. 8,77,903.00 whereas it was allowed Rs. 5,52,636.00 i.e. short allowed by Rs. 3,25,267.00. On both the above issues the rectification

MEHAR CHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

TDS of Rs.56,122/- and self assessment tax of Rs.7,230/- claimed by the assessee were granted and thus, the amount payable was determined at Rs.73,998/-. However, against the above intimation, the assessee filed a rectification request on 08.05.2019 which was rejected by the AO(CPC) vide rectification order u/s 154

SMT. PARMESHWARI DEVI,VILLAGE & PO- LALASI, VIA, KHURI BARI, SIKAR vs. CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

U/s 154 of the Act, thus, the finding of the ld. CIT(A) that appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation is not sustainable in the eyes of law. We are further of the view that a legitimate claim of the assessee cannot be denied on technicalities as it is a settled proposition of law that technicalities should

MANISH KUMAR VIJAY,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

rectification application u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act. The very order passed, is bad in law and without jurisdiction. Hence, the same may kindly be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO at CPC by upholding the addition of Rs. 2,88,304/-, due to mismatch in Form 26AS, which

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

rectifications u/s 154 of the Act.\n• Hon'ble ITAT, Lucknow Bench in the case of Kanpur Organics Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT\n(2020) 3 TMI 279 has held:Taxation of income - whether the surrendered amount can\nbe taxable under section 115BBE read with section 69A of the Act or it was to be taxed\nas a regular business receipt

PRAMOD KASLIWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD. 6(2) , BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed statistically

Bench: Ld. Cit/Nfac.

154 of the Act which was rejected by ld. AO vide his order dated 30.01.2020 and the contentions of the ld. AO is as under:- “In the assessee case, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 21.11.2019 at total income of Rs. 3,93,89,795/-. Further the assessee has filed rectification application on 12.12.2019 which is summarized as under

PRAMOD KASLIWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD. 6(2) , NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR 302005

Appeals of the assessee are allowed statistically

Bench: Ld. Cit/Nfac.

154 of the Act which was rejected by ld. AO vide his order dated 30.01.2020 and the contentions of the ld. AO is as under:- “In the assessee case, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 21.11.2019 at total income of Rs. 3,93,89,795/-. Further the assessee has filed rectification application on 12.12.2019 which is summarized as under

HIMANSHU GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

u/s 154. Action of ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjust, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by allowing the rectification of apparent mistake 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 2 of the assessee, the facts of the present case are that the assessee is a Doctor. For 3 years, the assessee did his internship with

ABHINAV JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INT. TAX.), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

rectification order u/s 154 of the Act and thus disallowed a sum of Rs.4,56,453/- being foreign tax credit/ relief u/s 90 of the Act. The brief facts of the case on hand is that the assessee being resident of India during F.Y. 2019-20 has filed ITR for A.Y. 2020-21 on 08- 01-2021 having acknowledgement number

SH. AMIT MANTRI,A-3-A, ANAJ MANDI, CHANDPOLE BAZAR, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

U/s 154(7) of the Act. Therefore, the question of limitation does not arise when the assessee claimed the refund vide letter dated 13/03/2013. The ld. AR has further contended that it was the duty of the tax authority to assess the correct income to tax and grant due refund to the assessee which is not in dispute

GOVERNEMNT SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL OFFICER TOOMLIKABAS, CHAKSU,CHAKSU vs. ACIT CPC TDS GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

154 of the Act and levying the fee for default in furnishing the TDS statement. Thus, the ld DR has contended that the reasons explained by the assessee for default are not relevant for the purpose of late fee levied U/s 234E of the Act. She has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have considered

M/S AIRLINK INTERNATIONAL,B-6, SHAKTESH APARTMENT, MOTI DOONGRI ROAD, JAIPUR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

rectification application under section 154 of the Act. The same was rejected stating that the assessee has not correctly filled schedules in the return like BP/DEP/DOA/P&L/PART A-01 of the Income tax Return-ITR-4. Being aggrieved by the order of AO CPC, the assessee preferred appeal before NFAC Delhi but the same was rejected stating that assessee

MAHESH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, AJMER, AJMER

Appeal is hereby dismissed as having been withdrawn

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS 2. The application u/s 154 of the Act was filed by the assessee for rectification of order dated 07.08.2023 passed

SHRI KAMAL TAK,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-3, AJMER

In the result appeal so filed by the assessee is disposed off with aforesaid directions

154 against the intimation issued u/s 143(1) by the CPC stating that the credit of TDS of Rs. 2,28,714/- was not granted to the assessee. The AO did not allow the claim of the assessee holding that the TCS was deducted in the name of main licensee (Shri Bheru Singh Tak) with different PAN and no credit

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

TDS, applicable was also\ndeducted. Confirmations of ledger account duly signed by the said\ncreditor bearing complete name, address and PAN. Further, it was\nnoticed that some of the other creditors are old and are coming from\npreceding years as their opening balances are available in their\nrespective ledger accounts. In most of the cases, closing balances are\nthere which

ROOP CHAND NAHAR,JAIPUR vs. CIT(APPEAL), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

rectification order dated 12.02.2020 passed U/s 154 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment order 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- Roop Chand Nahar vs. CIT(A) “1. That the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(Appeal) upholding rejection of the assessee's application u/s 154 by the AO is most arbitrary, unjust and untenable

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Rectification of mistakes which are apparent on record comes within the\npurview of Section 154. Assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 even for\nthose matters which can be rectified under Section 154, would render Section\n154 otiose, which is against the principles of interpretation.\n3.8. The principle of ut res magisvaleat quam pereat i.e. (interpretation to make a\nlegal provision

M/S RAJASTHAN KNOWLEDGE CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

10. In view of the above discussion and findings, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A) is set aside whereby disallowance of bonus to the tune of Rs

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, While Challenging Order Dated 25.07.2022 Issued U/S 154 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Came To Be Dismissed, While Observing As Under:- “5.6 In View Of The Above, Mandatory Condition Of Making The Payment Of The Employees Contribution To The Pf & Esi Funds Within 15 Days Of The Close Of Every Month, Has Not Been Fulfilled By The Appellant So As To Be Entitled For Claim Of Deduction U/S 36(1)(Va) Of The Act. Accordingly, The Ao’S Action Of Disallowing The Amount On Account Of Disallowance Of Bonus Amount Of Rs. 14,03.,538/- & 2 M/S Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Ltd., Jaipur. Employees Contrition To Pf Of Rs. 5,172/- Is Hereby Confirmed & Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Appellant Are Treated As Dismissed.”

Rectification u/s 154;  Copy of following documents relating to the payment of bonus before due date of filing the return:-  Kotak bank statement of assessee.  Ledger account of performance linked award cum bonus in the books of assessee.  Ledger account of TDS