OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowing the deduction is a matter of discussion and legal matter which cannot be rectified in order u/s 154. Thus it is debatable issue hence cannot be covered u/s 154 of I.T. Act, 1961. Section 154, scope of.-Section 154 confers jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer carry out rectification

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)

rectification order passed u/s 154 of IT Act, 1961. The ground no. 1 and ground no. 5 are general in nature and don't require the specific adjudication. Ground no. 2 to ground no. 4 are related to disallowance

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 order. The issue of disallowance has neither been discussed in order passed u/s. 143(3) nor in order u/s. 154

BHAWANI CHEM,JAIPUR vs. ASSESING OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

rectification purpose, issues cannot be examined which are not apparent from the record. The appeal against order u/s. 154 has been filed to agitate the grievances against the order u/s. 143(1) of the Act. It is explicitly clear that the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant company are not eminating from the order u/s. 154

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

rectification of apparent and patent mistake as per Section 154 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept the objection of the assessee and upheld the order of the AO passed u/s 154 of the Act. 2. Before us, the ld.AR of the assessee submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold the plot bearing

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORTATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue

disallowed, being capital in nature. 29. A reading of the notice under Section 154 of the Act and the reassessment notice dated 11th May 2009 shows that there is absolutely no material difference on the issues sought to be considered under these notices, except the fact that while in the proceedings under Section 154, the notice is based

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue

disallowed, being capital in nature. 29. A reading of the notice under Section 154 of the Act and the reassessment notice dated 11th May 2009 shows that there is absolutely no material difference on the issues sought to be considered under these notices, except the fact that while in the proceedings under Section 154, the notice is based

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

disallowance of Rs. 410898/- made u/s 143(3) whereas the adjusted total income as per Sec. 115JC (2) should be Rs. 1837984/-(Rs. 0 plus deduction claimed under chapter VI A u/s 80IA of Rs. 1837984) as per the return income. The disallowance/addition made in the order u/s 143(3) Rs. 383014/- will not be considered in the calculation

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

disallowance was made, while under proceedings u/s 147/148 the opinion has changed. 1.2) Opinion while issuing Notice for rectification of mistake apparent on record u/s 154

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)

disallowed Rs.5,44,649 /- u/s 14A of the I.T. Act. The assessee filed application u/s 154 before the Assessing Officer, requesting for rectification

RAMARPAN EDUCATION SOCIETY,,BHILWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, AJMER

In the result, appeal ITA No

disallowances on account of donations/capital receipt, depreciation on fixed assets, application of income acquiring the fixed assets and claim of excess application of ITA 497/JU/2017 & 862/JP/2018_ 3 Ramarpan Education Society Vs ITO(E) income. The assessee instead of filing an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), preferred rectification petition U/s 154

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

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

rectification u/s 154 of the Act (though\nnot conceding) instead of invoking Section 263. In this regard kindly refer\nto the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 286 CTR (SC) 113,\nwherein it is held that:\n“9. Under the Act different shades of power have been conferred on\ndifferent authorities to deal with orders of assessment passed

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

rectification proceedings u/s 154 however, same was dropped instead the Assessing Officer (“AO”) made proposal for revising the assessment u/s 263 of the Act made to the Ld. Pr.CIT - Whether objections of the assessee were not duly considered by the Ld. Pr. CIT before passing the impugned order? - HELD THAT:- From the order

M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGINEERS LTD. RACHANA (JV),JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance of interest expenses by passing Rectification order u/s 154 is not in accordance with law and order so passed

M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGINEERS LTD. RACHANA (JV),JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4, JAIPUR

In the result, these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance of interest expenses by passing Rectification order u/s 154 is not in accordance with law and order so passed

M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGINEERS LTD. RACHANA (JV),JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4, JAIPUR

In the result, these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance of interest expenses by passing Rectification order u/s 154 is not in accordance with law and order so passed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing partial deduction 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

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)

rectification order passed u/s. 154 of the IT Act Brief facts of the case as evident from order u/s. 154 dated 19.08.2021 is that during the relevant previous year the appellant sold 6 plots for total sale consideration of Rs.17.20,000/- and after claiming indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.62,800 indexed cost of construction of Rs.3