SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1052/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2011-12 Cuke Shri Rajendra Agarwal The Ito Vs. 8/138, Vidhyadhar Nagar Ward- 7(1) Jaipur 302 039 Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aatpa 7184 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Paul, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 03 /03/2020 Vkns'K@ Order

capital gains. Accordingly, the AO accepted returned income while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30-12-2013. Thereafter the AO proposed to rectify the mistake in the assessment order u/s 154 of the Act to withdraw the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the I.T. 3 Shri Rajendra Agarwal vs ITO , Ward- 7(1), Jaipur

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. VINOD KUMAR JHARCHUR HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in the application filed under rule 27

rectification proceedings could be initiated u/s 154 of the Act. 1.3.2 Debatable issues cannot be rectified u/s 154 of the Act: It is submitted that whether a proportionate capital gain

NIKHIL KHANDELWAL,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing.”

capital gain and accordingly the demand of Rs. 18,260/- was raised against the assessee u/s 143(1) of the Act. 3 Nikhil Khandelwal vs. ITO Against that intimation the assessee filed a rectification application before ld. AO [ CPC ] as per provision of section 154

MOHAMMED SIRAJ,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO, WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

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

u/s. 154 of the I. T. Act dated 19.08.2021 The ground of appeal relate to addition of Rs.5,41,052/- to income from Capital Gains added in the rectification

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.

u/s 154 dt. 30.01.20 drawn attention to in the Rectification application viz., w.r.t. explicit claim of extended benefit of holding since the death of original owner of asset attracting Long term Capital Gains

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

Appeals of the assessee are allowed statistically

Bench: Ld. Cit/Nfac.

u/s 154 dt. 30.01.20 drawn attention to in the Rectification application viz., w.r.t. explicit claim of extended benefit of holding since the death of original owner of asset attracting Long term Capital Gains

NANAG RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

154 r.w.s.250 was passed on 13.12.2024,\nclarifying the deduction amount.\nc) The assessee, in good faith, pursued the matter through grievance redressal\nmechanisms and rectification applications before approaching the Hon'ble\nITAT. As a result, the time elapsed in exhausting the available legal remedies.\n4\nITA NO. 1398/JP/2024\nSHRI NANAG RAM MEENA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR\nd) The delay

SARITA GUPTA,ALWAR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

capital gain claimed u/s 10(38) in reply thereto, the Principal CIT was not justified in initiating revision proceedings on the basis that the AO has allowed the exemption without examining the claim. 3. It is submitted that AO in its order has specifically mentioned that tax on account of excess cash of Rs.3,31,735/- shall be charged

SHRI VIKAS SONGARA,AJMER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, ground taken by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Him On Merit By Simply Stating That Assessee Has 2 Sh. Vikas Songara, Ajmer Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ajmer

capital gain as per law after taking into consideration the facts narrated in the application u/s 154. 8. The ld DR is heard who has relied on the order of the lower authorities. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. The scope of section 154 is limited to the extent of rectifying

BHARATPUR ROYAL FAMILY RELIGIOUS & CEREMONIAL TRUST,BHARATPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, we upheld the order of the ld PCIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 in setting aside the order so passed by the AO and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed

rectification u/s 154 of the Act. As per the assessee when the assessee was entitled for 15 Bharatpur Royal Family Religious & Ceremonial Trust Moti Mahal, Bharatpur Vs. CIT(E), Jaipur exemption and such exemption is not allowed in computation of total income, such Act is a mistake apparent from the record and can be rectified u/s 154

GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 531/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Global Institute Of Technology Cuke D.C.I.T., Vs. Society, Central Circle-3, D-91, Ambabari, Jhotwara Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aaatg 3217 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv, Jaipur Dated 01/04/2019 Passed U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2014-15. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee:

rectification U/s 154 of the Act and consequently, the ld. CIT(A) passed impugned order dated 01/04/2019 U/s 154 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order passed u/s 154 of the Act by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred present appeal before the ITAT on the grounds mentioned above. 4 ITA 531/JP/2019_ M/s Global Institute of Technology

SMT. NIRMALA GOYAL,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 54F while making rectification order. 10. It was further submitted that the only the mistakes which are apparent on record and which are not debatable in nature could be rectified under the provisions of section 154 of the Act. In the present case, the assessee has made investment in the construction to the tune

HARI NARAYAN MEENA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5), JAIPUR

rectification order u/s 154 in\nrespect of appellant application dated 23.09.2023 pointing out that the\nappeal order dated 21.09.2023 passed by him was infructuous since,\nthe assessment order dated 24.12.2018, adjudicated by him was no\nlonger in existence in view of the reopened proceedings u/s 148 dated\n31.03.2021.\n6. The appellant craves your indulgence to amend, delete, modify,\nwithdraw

BABUDEEN AND PARTY,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

capital by the members of assessee AOP was deleted. In second appeal department challenged the trading addition reduced to Rs.5,00,000/-. This Hon’ble ITAT enhanced trading addition to Rs.70,00,000/-. Against the order of Hon’ble ITAT, the assessee as well as the Deptt. both preferred appeal under sec. 260A of IT Act before

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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

u/s 80IA on account of Solid Waste Management System. 78. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of Pozzolana Portland Cement (PPC) and Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). Apart from using gypsum and clinker as raw materials in the cement production, respondent also uses treated pond ash/fly ash (‘solid waste’) as a substitute

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

u/s 80IA on account of Solid Waste Management System. 78. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of Pozzolana Portland Cement (PPC) and Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). Apart from using gypsum and clinker as raw materials in the cement production, respondent also uses treated pond ash/fly ash (‘solid waste’) as a substitute

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

rectification rights with regard to order passed by the CPC were transferred to the jurisdictional AO. Therefore, this argument is found to be not acceptable. With regard to argument about opportunity of being heard , if no opportunity was provided the AO shall provide the appellant opportunity of being heard before passing the appeal effect order. 7. The second ground