MUKESH GOYAL,GANGAPURCITY vs. ITO, SAWAI MADHOPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 154. the Id A.O. has not invoked section 68/69 in first assessment order. Later on, the Id A.O. changed his opinion by invoking section 68 and applied section 115BBE by rectification

WHOLERY INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

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

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

68 to 70). In this application the assessee did not seek any rectification in the return filed by it but he sought rectification in the order passed u/s 139(9) of the Act and the rectification of apparent mistake in any order is well within the scope of section 154

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by making an addition amounting\nto Rs.70 Lakhs invoking section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of\ndeposit of cash on dated 11.11.2016 just after declaration of demonetisation.\nAssessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT (A). The order of appeal was made on\n06.06.2023 in which surprisingly, the facts

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Rectification—Debatable issue— Rate of depreciation—Mistake that is proposed to be rectified is dependent on the question whether the machinery used for production of safety razor blades can be said to be part of "Iron & Steel Industry" and can come within category (b) mentioned hereinafter—This requires interpretation of the expression "other machinery and plant"—This is surely

SHRI HARI NARAIN GATTANI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

rectification u/s 154 by A.O. which A.O. did not accept and charged tax @ 60% on said income of Rs. 22,19,560/- and in addition to 25% surcharge on such tax and 3% education cess on tax and plus applicable interest thereon and raised a demand of Rs. 12,85,810/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before

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 proceedings on the same issue in the year 2013 and thereafter, completed the assessment by means of order u/s 143(3) read with section 147. On these facts it was held that during

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

rectification and powers under section 154 can be invoked. However, in the instant case, the Assessing officer has not invoked the provisions of section 69 at first place while passing the assessment order u/s. 143(3), therefore, the provisions of section 115BBE which are contingent on satisfaction of requirements of section 69 cannot be independently applied by invoking the provisions

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

rectification order without M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT appreciating the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition in original appellate order which cannot be considered as mistake apparent from record?" 10. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not upholding the invocation of provisions of section

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

rectification order without M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT appreciating the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition in original appellate order which cannot be considered as mistake apparent from record?" 10. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not upholding the invocation of provisions of section

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

rectification order without M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT appreciating the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition in original appellate order which cannot be considered as mistake apparent from record?" 10. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not upholding the invocation of provisions of section

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

rectification order without M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT appreciating the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition in original appellate order which cannot be considered as mistake apparent from record?" 10. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not upholding the invocation of provisions of section

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

rectification order without M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT appreciating the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition in original appellate order which cannot be considered as mistake apparent from record?" 10. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not upholding the invocation of provisions of section

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

rectification order without M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT appreciating the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition in original appellate order which cannot be considered as mistake apparent from record?" 10. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not upholding the invocation of provisions of section

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NAVAL KISHORE SONI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D. 24. We observe that this amendment takes effect from 1st of April, 2017 and will, accordingly, apply from assessment year 2017-18 and subsequent assessment years. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee current loss is allowable to set off against the current year income

SHRI NAWAL KISHORE SONI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D. 24. We observe that this amendment takes effect from 1st of April, 2017 and will, accordingly, apply from assessment year 2017-18 and subsequent assessment years. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee current loss is allowable to set off against the current year income

SHRI NAWAL KISHORE SONI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D. 24. We observe that this amendment takes effect from 1st of April, 2017 and will, accordingly, apply from assessment year 2017-18 and subsequent assessment years. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee current loss is allowable to set off against the current year income

SHRI NAWAL KISHORE SONI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D. 24. We observe that this amendment takes effect from 1st of April, 2017 and will, accordingly, apply from assessment year 2017-18 and subsequent assessment years. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee current loss is allowable to set off against the current year income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NAVAL KISHORE SONI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D. 24. We observe that this amendment takes effect from 1st of April, 2017 and will, accordingly, apply from assessment year 2017-18 and subsequent assessment years. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee current loss is allowable to set off against the current year income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NAVAL KISHORE SONI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D. 24. We observe that this amendment takes effect from 1st of April, 2017 and will, accordingly, apply from assessment year 2017-18 and subsequent assessment years. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee current loss is allowable to set off against the current year income