SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA,BARMER vs. ITO,WARD-1, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

rectification proceedings through issuing notice dated 11-09- 2019. As the assessee failed to Shri Kailash Chandra vs. ITO respond this notice, the AO inferred that the assessee had nothing to state against disallowance and therefore proceeded to pass order u/s 154 of the Act on 15-10-2019 making disallowance of Rs 1,87,864/- u/s

SUSHIL KUMAR MARLECHA,PALI vs. DEPUTY/ASSTT, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1,, GHAZIABAD / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

TDS for the period prior to 01.06.2015. Therefore, by levying late-fee which was not leviable, the Ld. AO has certainly committed a mistake apparent on record. Additionally, we also observe that under the scheme of Income-tax Act, 1961, the assesseee have two remedies against the intimation u/s 200A, viz. (i) file rectification- application u/s 154

MOHAN LAL TALESARA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.316/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

rectification is only related to intimation U/s 143(1) of the Act read with section 139(1) of the Act. We find that there is a lack of verification in the point of the ld. AO section 154 is only restricted to filing of return u/s 139 and processing of intimation u/s 143(1). So, withdrawal of TDS

SIDDHARTH AGARWAL,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blesiddharth Agarwal Assistant Commissioner Of 28, Polo Ground, Income Tax, Cpc, Tds Udaipur - 313001 Udaipur Pan No. Akgpa 4183 N Assessee By Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate (Virtual) Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal – Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal [Hereinafter Referred To As Cit(A)] Udaipur – 2 Dated 10.06.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2015-16 Challenging Therein The Sustaining The Levy Of Fee U/S 234A Of The Act By The Ao By View Of Rectification Order Dated 12.06.2022 Passed U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Amounting To Rs. 28,600/- & Interest Of Rs. 16,016/- Totalling To Rs. 44,616/-, Although The Amended Law Was Not Applicable For The Year Under Consideration Because It Was Applicable Only With Effect From 01.06.2015. Asst. Year: 2015-16 2 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Appellant Assessee Filed A Rectification Application U/S 154 Of The Act Before The Acit, Cpc-Tds, Vaishali Ghajiabad For Tds In Form 27Q For Financial Year 2014- 15 With Respect To Quarter 4, Subsequently Rectification Order Was Passed On 12.06.2020 Determining Late Filing Fee/Penalty Of Rs. 28,600/- U/S 234A & Interest Of Rs. 16,016/- U/S 220 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Has Been Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A). Ignoring The Fact That Ao Did Not Have Power To Change Fee U/S 234E While Processing Tds Returns & Hence In Absence Of Enabling Provisions, Levy Of Fee Could Not Be Deducted In The Course Of Intimation Issued U/S 200A Prior To 01.06.2015. The Ld. Ar Prayed For Deleting The Fee & Interest Levied By The Acit, Cpc.

rectification application u/s 154 of the Act before the ACIT, CPC-TDS, Vaishali Ghajiabad for TDS in Form 27Q for Financial

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

rectification\napplication made by appellant u/s 154, ignoring the apparent mistakes that had\noccurred in the appellate order, including incorrect application of law that goes\nagainst canons of well established fundamentals of partnership law.\n2. That the ld. CIT (Appeal), Udaipur has erred in law and on facts in confirming M/s.\nKeshariyaji Filling Station, a partnership firm as an existing

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

rectification\napplication made by appellant u/s 154, ignoring the apparent mistakes that had\noccurred in the appellate order, including incorrect application of law that goes\nagainst canons of well established fundamentals of partnership law.\n2. That the ld. CIT (Appeal), Udaipur has erred in law and on facts in confirming M/s.\nKeshariyaji Filling Station, a partnership firm as an existing

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

rectification\napplication made by appellant u/s 154, ignoring the apparent mistakes that had\noccurred in the appellate order, including incorrect application of law that goes\nagainst canons of well established fundamentals of partnership law.\n2. That the ld. CIT (Appeal), Udaipur has erred in law and on facts in confirming M/s.\nKeshariyaji Filling Station, a partnership firm as an existing

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

rectification\napplication made by appellant u/s 154, ignoring the apparent mistakes that had\noccurred in the appellate order, including incorrect application of law that goes\nagainst canons of well established fundamentals of partnership law.\n2. That the ld. CIT (Appeal), Udaipur has erred in law and on facts in confirming M/s.\nKeshariyaji Filling Station, a partnership firm as an existing

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

rectification\napplication made by appellant u/s 154, ignoring the apparent mistakes that had\noccurred in the appellate order, including incorrect application of law that goes\nagainst canons of well established fundamentals of partnership law.\n2. That the ld. CIT (Appeal), Udaipur has erred in law and on facts in confirming M/s.\nKeshariyaji Filling Station, a partnership firm as an existing

M/S. MADAN MOHAN JAIN AND SONS ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS credits as Madan Mohan Jain & Sons v. ITO per Form 26AS by confirming the rectification order passed by the AO u/s 154

M/S. MADAN MOHAN JAIN AND SONS ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS credits as Madan Mohan Jain & Sons v. ITO per Form 26AS by confirming the rectification order passed by the AO u/s 154

MARBLE KINGDOM INDIA PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO,WARD-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 Marble Kingdom India Private Income Tax Officer, 365, Lodha Complex, Shashtri Vs Ward-Tds, Circle, Udaipur Udaipur Pan: Jdhm06807D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2013-14 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 31.12.2019 Passed By Income Tax Officer (Tds), Udaipur. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Under Section 154 Of The Act Against The Order Under Section 200A. Assessee Requested The Ito To Rectify The Levy Of Fee Charged Under Section 234E Of The Act. The Ld. Ito Rejected The Application On The Ground That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent From Record As It Is A Debatable Issue. The Relevant Paragraph Of The Order Is Reproduced Here As Under:- Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. “3. On-Going Through The Record It Is Noticed That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent On Record & Issue Is Debatable & Also Not Covered U/S 154 Of The Act. Thus The Contention Of The Deductor/Assessee Is Not Tenable Because The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Has Dismissed The Appeals In The Case Of M/S Dundlod Shikdhan Sansthan & Anr. V/S Union Of India & Ors. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8672/2014 Dated 28.07.2015 On This Issue. Hence Considering The Facts Of The Case & Decision Of Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court The Application Filed By The Assessee U/S 154 Is Rejected Accordingly.”

u/s 154 is rejected accordingly.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order under section 154 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal. None appeared for the assessee. However, assessee has filed written submission. As per the written submission, it is admitted by the assessee that quarterly TDS statements

KAUSHALIYA DEVI DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

TDS Credit of Rs. 46,662/- in the computation of income. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused material on record. From the impugned order, it is seen that the learned JCIT (A) rejected the appeal qua the assessee by observing vide para5, as under: 5. Decision: I have carefully considered the appellate documents, submissions filed, and order