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

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

rectification under section 154 of the Act and / or is also appealable under section 246A of the Act, since the demand issued by the Assessing Officer is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156 of the Act. Since the intimation in question issued by the Assessing Officer was appealable order under section 246A

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

rectification under section 154 of the Act and / or is also appealable under section 246A of the Act, since the demand issued by the Assessing Officer is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156 of the Act. Since the intimation in question issued by the Assessing Officer was appealable order under section 246A

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

rectification under section 154 of the Act and / or is also appealable under section 246A of the Act, since the demand issued by the Assessing Officer is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156 of the Act. Since the intimation in question issued by the Assessing Officer was appealable order under section 246A

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

rectification under section 154 of the Act and / or is also appealable under section 246A of the Act, since the demand issued by the Assessing Officer is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156 of the Act. Since the intimation in question issued by the Assessing Officer was appealable order under section 246A

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

rectification under section 154 of the Act and / or is also appealable under section 246A of the Act, since the demand issued by the Assessing Officer is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156 of the Act. Since the intimation in question issued by the Assessing Officer was appealable order under section 246A

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

rectification under section 154 of the Act and / or is also appealable under section 246A of the Act, since the demand issued by the Assessing Officer is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156 of the Act. Since the intimation in question issued by the Assessing Officer was appealable order under section 246A

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL STATION HEADQUARTER BSF,BIKANER vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE, JODHPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

rectification under section 154 of the Act and / or is also appealable under section 246A of the Act, since the demand issued by the Assessing Officer is deemed to be a notice of payment under section 156 of the Act. Since the intimation in question issued by the Assessing Officer was appealable order under section 246A

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

M/S. MAHAVEER INFRA ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. ,MUMBAI. vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, BARMER

In the result, the revenue’s appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas the assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.186/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.212/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit Circle M/S. Mahaveer Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan E-109, Ansa Industrial Estate, Saki Vihar Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer Road, Saki Naka, Andheri (East) Vs. Rajasthan Mumbai-400 072 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-8521-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.222/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. C.O. No.18/Jodh/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.186/Jodh/2018) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Mahaveer Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle बना E-109, Ansa Industrial Estate, Saki Vihar Aaykar Bhavan म/ Road, Saki Naka, Andheri (East) Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer Vs. Mumbai-400 072 Rajasthan "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-8521-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

rectification application u/s 154 before Ld.AO wherein this addition so made was ultimately reduced to Rs.13.10 Lacs and the balance additions were already deleted. 4.3 Before Ld. CIT(A), it was pointed out that the difference of Rs.13.10 Lacs arose due to double entry of TDS

ACIT, CIRCLE, BARMER vs. M/S. MAHAVEER INFRA ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI.

In the result, the revenue’s appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas the assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.186/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.212/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit Circle M/S. Mahaveer Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan E-109, Ansa Industrial Estate, Saki Vihar Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer Road, Saki Naka, Andheri (East) Vs. Rajasthan Mumbai-400 072 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-8521-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.222/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. C.O. No.18/Jodh/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.186/Jodh/2018) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Mahaveer Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle बना E-109, Ansa Industrial Estate, Saki Vihar Aaykar Bhavan म/ Road, Saki Naka, Andheri (East) Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer Vs. Mumbai-400 072 Rajasthan "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-8521-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

rectification application u/s 154 before Ld.AO wherein this addition so made was ultimately reduced to Rs.13.10 Lacs and the balance additions were already deleted. 4.3 Before Ld. CIT(A), it was pointed out that the difference of Rs.13.10 Lacs arose due to double entry of TDS

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

rectification application made by appellant u/s 154, ignoring the apparent mistakes that had occurred in the appellate order, including incorrect application of law that goes against canons of well established fundamentals of partnership law. 2. That the ld. CIT (Appeal), Udaipur has erred in law and on facts in confirming M/s. Keshariyaji 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

rectification application made by appellant u/s 154, ignoring the apparent mistakes that had occurred in the appellate order, including incorrect application of law that goes against canons of well established fundamentals of partnership law. 2. That the ld. CIT (Appeal), Udaipur has erred in law and on facts in confirming M/s. Keshariyaji 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

rectification application made by appellant u/s 154, ignoring the apparent mistakes that had occurred in the appellate order, including incorrect application of law that goes against canons of well established fundamentals of partnership law. 2. That the ld. CIT (Appeal), Udaipur has erred in law and on facts in confirming M/s. Keshariyaji 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

rectification application made by appellant u/s 154, ignoring the apparent mistakes that had occurred in the appellate order, including incorrect application of law that goes against canons of well established fundamentals of partnership law. 2. That the ld. CIT (Appeal), Udaipur has erred in law and on facts in confirming M/s. Keshariyaji 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

rectification application made by appellant u/s 154, ignoring the apparent mistakes that had occurred in the appellate order, including incorrect application of law that goes against canons of well established fundamentals of partnership law. 2. That the ld. CIT (Appeal), Udaipur has erred in law and on facts in confirming M/s. Keshariyaji Filling Station, a partnership firm as an existing