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)

rectification proceedings u/s 154 were initiated in the year 2011, however, AO without dropping the proceedings or without passing any order u/s 154, initiated the reassessment

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)

reassessment not assessment. 2. That the AO has erred on facts and in law by invoking the Section 154 for rectification of mistake apparent on record as the issue involved are not covered under mistake apparent on record under the scope of 154 of the Act. Kindly quash the rectification order 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)

rectification proceedings u/s 154 were initiated in the year 2011, however, AO without dropping the proceedings or without passing any order u/s 154, initiated the reassessment

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

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp

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

reassess the earlier\nassessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can't\nusurp

SUNIL MODI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

reassessment deserves to be quashed. 2. That in law and in the facts and in circumstances of the case the Ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in applying provisions of section 145(3) of the I.T. Act ignoring that assessee has maintained regularly books of accounts, quantitative details are available backed by stock register and the accounts are audited. 2.1. That

SUNIL MODI ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

reassessment deserves to be quashed. 2. That in law and in the facts and in circumstances of the case the Ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in applying provisions of section 145(3) of the I.T. Act ignoring that assessee has maintained regularly books of accounts, quantitative details are available backed by stock register and the accounts are audited. 2.1. That

SUNIL MODI ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

reassessment deserves to be quashed. 2. That in law and in the facts and in circumstances of the case the Ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in applying provisions of section 145(3) of the I.T. Act ignoring that assessee has maintained regularly books of accounts, quantitative details are available backed by stock register and the accounts are audited. 2.1. That

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA(HUF), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

rectification order dated 10.07.2017 in ITA No. 311/2016-17 as well as details available on record and detailed discussion made above the total amount paid by M/s Vimal Chand Surana, HUF during F.Y. 2007-08 in lieu of this transaction was of Rs. 2,64,66,445/- (i.e. 13.34% of 19,83,99,136/-), which has escped the assessment

SHRIVINAYAK SAMANVAY BUILDESTATES LLP,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as having been withdrawn as indicated hereinabove

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

u/s. 154 of the Act, on 19.05.2023 and the finding mentioned in last para of rectification order made by Ld. A.O. is as follows:- "In view of the above, the fresh reassessment

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing.”

rectification application filed by the assessee was also rejected by order dated 15.12.2022 confirming the demand of Rs. 18,260/-. 4. Aggrieved from that order passed u/s. 154 of the Act the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds raised by the assessee, the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated

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)

u/s 154 passed by the A.O withdrawing and making the addition on the above account. The AO. is accordingly directed to delete the same and the grounds of the appeal are allowed. 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR straight way submitted that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) needs to be quashed as the decision

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LTD ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) JAIPUR , 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\ncan be taxable under section 115BBE read with section 69A of the Act or it was to\nbe taxed as a regular business receipt

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL JAIPUR , JAIPUR

rectifications u/s 154 of the Act.\n• Hon'ble ITAT, Lucknow Bench in the case of Kanpur Organics Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 3 TMI 279 has held: Taxation of income - whether the surrendered amount can be taxable under section 115BBE read with section 69A of the Act or it was to be taxed as a regular business receipt - HELD

SHRI KRISHNA BOTHRA 302, VINAYAK APARTMENT PRITHVIRAJ ROAD, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6 (2), JAIPUR, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 967/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 Krishna Bothra, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 302, Vinayak Apartment, Pritiviraj Ward 6(2) Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Arzpb 5089 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri H.M. Singhvi (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 21/05/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11 Wherein Sole Effective Ground Of Appeal Has Been Taken & The Same Is Reproduced As Under: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Went Wrong In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 9,41,283/- Of Interest U/S 234A(1) Whereas It Should Be Charged As Per Sec. 234A(3) Which Is Bad In Law.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

154 increasing the interest charged u/s 234A from Rs. 266950/- to 941983/-u/s 234A(1) instead of interest u/s 234A(3). The result thereof was increase of interest from Rs. 266950/- to Rs. 941983/- . The question now arises whether the interest u/s 234A should be charged for a period of 19 months as per the provisions contained in Sec. 234A

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

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

rectification of mistake on 24.10.2019. The application was disposed of by-passing order u/s. 154 of the Act. On 24.12.2019. 3 Ajay Bakliwal vs. ACIT 2.2 As there was difference of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- between ITR filed under section 153A and 139 of the IT. Act, 1961, the ld. AO considered the additional income so disclosed liable

NORATAN LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is technically dismissed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarnoratan Lal Sharma, 35-A Nanupuri, Jhotwara, Jaipur 302 012 Pan No.: Bcyps 6349P ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2), Jaipur …...Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. Cit Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2025 O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

reassessment proceedings. Even the fact that assessee holds PAN was not considered. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in considering cost of acquisition as on 01-04-1981 at Rs 90,738/- whereas assessee claimed in his written submission cost of acquisition of property