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 of the Income Tax Act, passed by the Assessing Officer. The appellant has declared rental income of Rs. 3,75,375/- after claiming 30% deduction of Rs. 1,60,875/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has directed to treat the income as business income instead of income from house property.; Hence, rectification

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

rectification under Section 154, the self same issue cannot be the subject matter of reassessment by taking recourse to Section 147 of the Act. Thus, on the facts that are available today, as far as the assessment year 2003-2004 is concerned, there are two proceedings, one under Section 154 and another under Section 147 of the Act. The jurisdiction

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

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

rectification under Section 154, the self same issue cannot be the subject matter of reassessment by taking recourse to Section 147 of the Act. Thus, on the facts that are available today, as far as the assessment year 2003-2004 is concerned, there are two proceedings, one under Section 154 and another under Section 147 of the Act. The jurisdiction

DEVENDRA PRASAD TIWARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO 2(1), JAIPRUR, NCRB BUILDING

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

House Property Income which was wrongly calculated by the assessee in his return of income. Against the assessment order of the AO, the assessee filed rectification application for which the CPC, Bengaluru passed an order u/s 154

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

house property u/s 54F is Rs.15,74,060/- as against Rs.11,70,890/- considered by the AO. Both these facts are not denied by the lower authorities. Thus, when the entire facts are narrated in the application u/s 154, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee only for the reason that assessee

MANISH KUMAR VIJAY,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

House Property -38,129 E. Gross Total Income (B+C-D) 4,66,819 F. Deduction u/s 80C 1,17,392 G. Deduction u/s 80TTA 3,113 H. Total Income [E-F-G] 3,46,314 5 Manish Kumar Vijay vs. ITO Manish Kumar Vijay vs. ITO I. Rounded off Rounded off 346,310 4. Thereafter, the return was processed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house of Rs. 16,29,600/-. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.” Smt. Nirmala Goyal, Ajmer Vs. The ACIT, Ajmer 2. Briefly stated, the facts of case are that the Assessing officer issued a show cause dated 12.03.2015 u/s 154 read with section 155 stating that while giving effect to the order

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing.”

house property loss of Rs. 1,62,673/- against short term capital gains of Rs. 1,70,618/- as per section 71 of the Act. But ld. AO adjusted such loss against Business Income instead of short-term capital gain and accordingly the demand of Rs. 18,260/- was raised against the assessee u/s

G.S. DREAM HOME LLP,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

house on certain plot 2. which was subsequently dropped and thus balance receivable cannot be taxed (b) assessee is following project completion method of accounting and therefore balance receivable cannot be assessed to tax in the year under consideration and by presuming that (c) the assessee earned on money on sale of plot since average sale rate of plot

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.

Rectification application u/s 154, have different scope, object and purpose and in peculiar cases such as the present one, both these proceedings can be contested parallelly. 3. The learned CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi has further erred on facts as well as in law in declining to entertain the benefit of Sec. 54 of ITA pursuant to the assessee claiming Exemption

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

Appeals of the assessee are allowed statistically

Bench: Ld. Cit/Nfac.

Rectification application u/s 154, have different scope, object and purpose and in peculiar cases such as the present one, both these proceedings can be contested parallelly. 3. The learned CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi has further erred on facts as well as in law in declining to entertain the benefit of Sec. 54 of ITA pursuant to the assessee claiming Exemption

MUKESH KUMAR SARAOGI,CHURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

house loan of Rs. 1,43,619/-." [Emphasis Supplied] 1. Accordingly, the provisions of section 115BBE were not invoked. Returned Income was accepted and resultantly no demand was raised. 2. The conscious call, of not assessing surrendered income as per the provisions of section 69/69A/698 and, accordingly, not applying the provisions of section 115BBE, is evident from the fact that

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

House,\nOld Bus Stand,\nJhunjhunu.\nबनाम\nVs.\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1,\nJhunjhunu.\nस्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: BDWPK6579A\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate\nराजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 22/04/2025\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 03/06/2025\nआदेश/ORDER

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

House,\nOld Bus Stand,\nJhunjhunu.\nबनाम\nVs.\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1,\nJhunjhunu.\nस्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: BDWPK6579A\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, Advocate\nराजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR\nसुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 22/04/2025\nउदघोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 03/06/2025\nआदेश/ORDER

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

Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 8 TMI 673 has held: As regards the issue of non-disallowance of loss on sale of tower, it is duly emanating that this aspect was raised on the basis of audit objection. The case laws cited by the Id. Counsel of the assessee duly establish that revisionary power u/s 263 cannot be initiated

MAHESHWARI SAMAZ SAMPATI TRUST ,BHILWARA vs. ITO EXEMPTION , AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property at Rs. 28,83,279/- and denying the claim of exemption. The appellant also contended that in respect of rectification application filed under section 154 against intimation under section 143(1) is based on the actual genuine facts of the case. The trust has filed an application for registration u/s

SHRI SURESH MAL LODHA, 537-38, MAHIMA TRINITY, NEW SANGANER ROAD, SWEJ FARM, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

House Property of Rs.9,69,696/- were declared voluntarily, suo moto and in good faith before any detection made, even remotely. Moreover, the AO did not ask for any details at the time of issuing notice u/s 143(2) (Refer AO Pg-1 (PB-13) in which the AO categorically stated that notice u/s 142(1) and query letter

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal to the ld. CIT and then the latter passing the order u/s