ADITYA CEMENT,BEHROR vs. ITO, BEHROR

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

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

depreciation. Finally, it filed ITR on 26.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.30,00,650/- During assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised computation including the surrendered amount under the head “Income from business & profession” and explaining that there being no column in the ITR to show “Surrendered business income”, it had shown the same under the head “Income from other

RENU KHUNTETA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

rectification. Considering all facts & circumstances of the case, the income tax on total income of Rs. 22,20,998 is charged at the rate: 18.5% as per provision of section 115JC(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 Le. Rs. 4,23,212/-, Charge interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as per rules

MAYUR GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

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

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

u/s. 154 of the Act which was rejected on the pretext that the assessee could not brought to the contention during the assessment proceeding and consequently the 15 Mayur Global Pvt. Ltd. vs.ITO rectification application was rejected. The ld. AO on this aspect seems to be too technical when the assessee categorically submit that the income which

RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

rectification application with AO. The\nrectification application rejected by the AO vide its order dated\n15.12.2020 as under-\n\"The explain discrepancies found on the documents furnished during\nthe course of assessment proceedings. Now assessee has filed\napplication us/ 154 with the explanation that the excess expenditure\nwas met out from accumulated funds of earlier years i.e. F.Y.2011-12,\n2012

DYNAMIC POWERTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

154 on 22.01.2024 (Rectification Request No. 9091774400220124) highlighting the error in CPC's processing. However, CPC rejected the application on the ground that there was no mistake apparent from the record. A subsequent rectification application was filed on 29.02.2024 (Request No. 139133340290224), specifically pointing out the incorrect selection recorded by CPC in the field “Taxation Option u/s 115BAA”. However, even

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,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

rectification order u/s 154 rw.s. 143(3) dated 31.01.2021. On first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this ground During further appeal by the assessee company, the Hon'ble ITAT in its composite order in appeal No. 496 to 498 & 500/JP/2023 dated 21.02.2024 passed for A.Y. 2015-16 to 2018-19, has allowed

M/S BALAJI CONSTRUCTION,AJMER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, AJMER

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation has been allowed 3 M/s Balaji Construction/ Dinesh Choudhary vs. ACIT in the assessment order. Accordingly, the AO issued a notice u/s 154/155 of the Act on 15.10.2020 to rectify the mistake. The appellant filed a written submission in response to rectification notice and an order u/s 154

BADRI NARAIN NATHU LAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(3), JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Depreciation Chart 15,261/- Interest as per Deed 5,34,054/- 5,49,315/- Profit before Remuneration 2,62,397/- Less: Remuneration allowable 2,36,157/- Gross Total Income 26,240/- 6. While processing returns, it was claimed that the assessee has declared the above amount as Nil while amount mentioned in annexure to Form 3CD is Rs.5

SMT. KRISHNA AGRAWAL, SAHIB LAL RAMNATH SARAF, CHAUTH MATA BAZAR, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTAT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

depreciation on building which was claimed in the ITR and to make rectification u/s 154 to reduce the demand of Rs.1

BHANU PARKASH BANSAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

rectification order u/s 154 on 11.08.2020. 3.3 Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the AO and thus dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- 5.7 (t) In view of the discussion above, it can be safely concluded that the clarificatory amendment brought out by the Finance

NIMBUS PIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

rectification order u/s 154 considering total income of Rs. 2,83,89,200/- wherein ADIT CPC, Bangaore has made addition of Rs. 2,54,004/- on account of late deposit of employees contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI. Being aggrieved by the order, the assessee is in appeal against the said order u/s 154 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved

INCOME TAX OFFICER , EXEMPTION, WARD, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

154, the appellant has withdrawn and added back ‘’provisions of expenses withdrawn’’ of Rs.s2,30,26,s342/- 8.2.2 In the original assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 27.03.2015, the A.O. had made an addition of Rs.2,30,26,342/- on account of disallowance of provision for the expenses. In the appeal before the CIT(A) vide order u/s 250 dated

SHRI KBL SHARMA MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL SOCIETY,DEFENCE PUBLIC SCHOOL, E-BLOCK, AMRAPALI CIRCLE, VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD-1,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

154 dated 07-012-2019 by not providing adequate opportunity of hearing, not considering the material already on record and by wrongly holding that rectification application is getting barred by limitation on 31-03- 2023. 2 SHRI KBL SHARMA MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL SOCIETY VS ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR 2. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on fact

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

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

CHANDRA SHEKHAR TIWARI,FLAT NO. B-9, D-224, TANWAR RESIDENCY, TULSI MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

rectification application before the CPC on 08-03-2022 which was disposed off by the ADIT, CPC (in short ‘’the AO, CPC’’) vide order u/s 154 dated 17-03-2022 and addition made of Rs.34,17,630/- in intimation u/s 143(1) on account of delay in deposit of employee share of ESI/PF u/s

BIHANI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(1), JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.19/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s. Bihani Constructions (P) Ltd. 64/167, Heera Path, VT Road Mansarovar, Jaipur 302 020 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 4(1) Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAECB 8359 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri R.S. Poonia, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh

154 of the Act thereafter amounting to Rs.9,69,221/- by disallowing employees 2 ITA19/JP/2023 BIHANI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD 4(1), JAIPUR contribution to PF u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961 to the income of the assessee on this count is wrong , unwarranted and bad in law. Kindly delete the addition