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)

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 could have been undertaken as provided by Act. The A.O. chose it as a mistake apparent u/s 154 from the record which is not the applicable provision of law to facts looking from any angle, the mistake in order to be rectifiable should be a self-evident and mistake which is tried to be corrected

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

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

u/s 154 and the ld. CIT(A),though accepting the plea of assessee, erred in not specifically mentioning it while accepting the ground of appeal of the assessee” Submission: 1.1 All the conditions set out in Rule 27 of ITAT Rules fulfilled: At the outset, it is submitted that the Rule 27 of ITAT Rules read as under: “Respondent

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

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

reassessment" in the guise of "rectification" by ignoring the fact that interest expenditure claimed by assessee was allowed in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) after examining the facts and material available on record, thus the order so passed u/s 154

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

reassessment" in the guise of "rectification" by ignoring the fact that interest expenditure claimed by assessee was allowed in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) after examining the facts and material available on record, thus the order so passed u/s 154

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

reassessment" in the guise of "rectification" by ignoring the fact that interest expenditure claimed by assessee was allowed in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) after examining the facts and material available on record, thus the order so passed u/s 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)

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 of the Act. In the present case, the assessee has made investment in the construction to the tune

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