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)

disallowable under section 37 (total of 7a to 7j)". 37 (total of 7a to 7j)". 9 VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR 6. Therefore, the intimation issued u/s 143(1) dated 06.03.2019 and order u/s 154

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , 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)

154 of the Act raising therein following grounds of appeal in the respective appeals. 2 TELECRATS INDIA PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR ITA NO. 574/JP/2023 – A.Y. 2020-21 u/s 143(1) of the Act ‘’(1) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO (CPC) has erred in passing order

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, 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)

154 of the Act raising therein following grounds of appeal in the respective appeals. 2 TELECRATS INDIA PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR ITA NO. 574/JP/2023 – A.Y. 2020-21 u/s 143(1) of the Act ‘’(1) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO (CPC) has erred in passing order

SM WORKFORCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. ITO, WARD, BHIWADI

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)

disallowing the amount of Rs 6,98,230/- under section 143 sub-section 1. It is trite that under section 143 sub-section 1 clause a, prima facie adjustments are permissible only in respect of claims, the incorrectness of which is apparent from information in the return. Debatable claims are not liable to such prima facie adjustments, which are permissible

TAB INDIA GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR , 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)

Section 143(1)(a). The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire disallowance of Rs.4,36,390/- 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action

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

1), read with section 201, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nBusiness expenditure - Allowability of (Interest on delayed payment of\nTDS) Assessment year 2015-16 - Assessee paid interest on late\nsubmission of TDS and claimed said interest as deduction - Assessing\nOfficer disallowed said claim on ground that interest paid under section\n201(1A) would be penal in nature - Whether since

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ADIT (CPC) BANGALORE, BENGALURU KARNATAKA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 534 & 536/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2018-19 Om Infra Limited Om Tower, M. I. Road Church Road, Rajasthan cuke Vs. ADIT (CPC), Bangalore, Bengaluru, Karnataka LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACO 8245 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri B. V. Maheshwari (F.C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. A. S. Nehra

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, by the ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru. Om Infra Limited vs. ADIT (CPC) Bangalore 2. At the outset, the ld. AR has submitted that the matter in ITA No. 536/JP/2023 may be taken as a lead case for discussions as the issues involved in the lead case are common and inextricably interlinked or in fact

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ADIT (CPC) BANGALORE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 534 & 536/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2018-19 Om Infra Limited Om Tower, M. I. Road Church Road, Rajasthan cuke Vs. ADIT (CPC), Bangalore, Bengaluru, Karnataka LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACO 8245 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri B. V. Maheshwari (F.C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. A. S. Nehra

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, by the ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru. Om Infra Limited vs. ADIT (CPC) Bangalore 2. At the outset, the ld. AR has submitted that the matter in ITA No. 536/JP/2023 may be taken as a lead case for discussions as the issues involved in the lead case are common and inextricably interlinked or in fact

ASHA PANCHARYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowed if paid late as per period under respective laws of PF and ESI but paid on or before due date of filing Return of income u/s.139(1). 3. Ld. CIT was not justified in sustaining legality of rejection of application under section 154

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

section\n271(1)(c) of the Act.\n8.\nWe have heard both the parties and perused the materials available\non record. Vide Ground no 1 & 2 the assessee challenges the levy of\npenalty of Rs.4,04,481/-. The brief facts related to the levy of this penalty is\nthat the assessee there was an action of search and seizure action

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)

154 whereas amount claimed on payment of ESI & PF if paid after due date under respective Act but before due date of filing of returns under section 139 of Income Tax Act, same could not be disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1

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)

Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of delay in payment of ESI and PF made by CPC u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 Chandra Shekhar Tiwari vs ITO, Ward 1(2), Jaipur 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, CPC has no power to make adjustment u/s 143(1

WAHID KHAN,BHIWADI vs. ITO WARD-1(2), ALWAR /DCIT CPC BENGALURU, ALWAR/CPC BENGALURU

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

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

section 36(1)(va) and sec. 43B by the Finance Act, 2021 was not available/applicable at the time of process. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 143(1) r.w.s. 154 of IT Act, 1961 on debatable

LALIT KUMAR CHABRA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 2(2), KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

154 is bad in law and on the facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other statutory reasons, and hence, the same may kindly be quashed and in any case, the impugned additions made there in are bad in law and on the facts Lalit Kumar Chabra, Kotavs. ITO, Kota for want of jurisdiction and various other

LALIT KUMAR CHABRA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 2(2), KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

154 is bad in law and on the facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other statutory reasons, and hence, the same may kindly be quashed and in any case, the impugned additions made there in are bad in law and on the facts Lalit Kumar Chabra, Kotavs. ITO, Kota for want of jurisdiction and various other

NEERAJ PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

154 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 5. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. On facts and in circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the action of CPC in making disallowance of employee’s contribution to PF/ESIC, paid before the due date of filing of return

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)

section 154 of the Act. 2 Aditya Cement, Alwar 2. That the Id. CIT(Appeal) erred in confirming the order passed by the Id. AO which was time barred by limitation, the order was passed after time limit provided in the Act. 3. That the Id AO has illegally rectified the order u/s 154 and made illegal addition

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

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 in respect of apparent mistakes which are self-evident from