SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

price for the purpose of Section 80A(6) of the Act. 30.11. The ld. D/R in his submissions relied strongly on the order of TPO and the method adopted by TPO for determining market rate of power. According to ld. D/R, TPO has adopted the rate of power at which Distribution companies purchase power from the Generating companies. We find

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Transfer Price of Power for the purpose of deduction u/s 80-1A of the Act and therefore, same was rightly rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). However, Hon'ble ITAT has allowed the same without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Assessing Officer. There is no reference to any remand report being sought on additional grounds

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), 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 can\nbe taxable under section 115BBE read with section 69A of the Act or it was to be taxed\nas a regular business receipt

BHARATPUR ROYAL FAMILY RELIGIOUS & CEREMONIAL TRUST,BHARATPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, we upheld the order of the ld PCIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 in setting aside the order so passed by the AO and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed

rectification u/s 154 of the Act. As per the assessee when the assessee was entitled for 15 Bharatpur Royal Family Religious & Ceremonial Trust Moti Mahal, Bharatpur Vs. CIT(E), Jaipur exemption and such exemption is not allowed in computation of total income, such Act is a mistake apparent from the record and can be rectified u/s 154

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

HARI NARAYAN MEENA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5), JAIPUR

rectification order u/s 154 in\nrespect of appellant application dated 23.09.2023 pointing out that the\nappeal order dated 21.09.2023 passed by him was infructuous since,\nthe assessment order dated 24.12.2018, adjudicated by him was no\nlonger in existence in view of the reopened proceedings u/s 148 dated\n31.03.2021.\n6. The appellant craves your indulgence to amend, delete, modify,\nwithdraw

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

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

154 Taxman 220 (All) 1.10. SAHARA HOSPITALITY LTD. Vs CIT [2012] 211 Taxman 15 (Bom) Prayer:- In view of the above submissions and judicial precedents cited supra, the appellant humbly requests your honour to accept the appellant’s ground regarding invalid jurisdiction and not following proper procedure u/s. 127 of the Act. Assessment order passed by Ld. AO (ACIT, Ajmer

ANUSHA FINVEST PVT LTD ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

154 ITR 148 (SC), which emphasized the concept of substance over form. The modus operandi adopted by the assessee by acquiring Losses or acquiring Profits with tacit connivance with the Brokers through Client Code Modifications without paying any taxes or avoid declaring true Profits is nothing but a colourable device as cited by Hon'ble SC Judgment. "The taxing authority

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

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

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

u/s 37(1) of the Act. It is important to note that the judgement in the case of Haji Aziz (supra) was rendered by the honourable Supreme Court in the year even when the impugned Explanation of Section 37(1) which provides for the deeming provisions for the disallowance - was not on the statute. The scope of disallowance