MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

154 of the Act which were also rejected by the Assessing Officer. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that no fee could be levied under section 234E of the Act while passing intimation under section 200A of the Act before 01/06/2015 as power to charge/collect fees under section 234E

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

154 of the Act which were also rejected by the Assessing Officer. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that no fee could be levied under section 234E of the Act while passing intimation under section 200A of the Act before 01/06/2015 as power to charge/collect fees under section 234E

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

154 of the Act which were also rejected by the Assessing Officer. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that no fee could be levied under section 234E of the Act while passing intimation under section 200A of the Act before 01/06/2015 as power to charge/collect fees under section 234E

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

154 of the Act which were also rejected by the Assessing Officer. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that no fee could be levied under section 234E of the Act while passing intimation under section 200A of the Act before 01/06/2015 as power to charge/collect fees under section 234E

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

154 of the Act which were also rejected by the Assessing Officer. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that no fee could be levied under section 234E of the Act while passing intimation under section 200A of the Act before 01/06/2015 as power to charge/collect fees under section 234E

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

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(1)(a) of the Act, therefore

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.”

TDS), Udaipur. 4. In the written submission, assessee has relied on various case laws to put forth the point that late fee under section 234E cannot be levied for the period prior to 1.6.2015. 2 Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. 5. It is observed that the assessee has filed an appeal before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against

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

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

TDS u/s 194I of the Act. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed by the Ld CIT(A), NFAC without considered the provision of law and law decided by Hon’ble Court in judicial manner had recorded arbitrary findings which are either contrary or against the spirit of provision of section 154

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

154 against the impugned order dated 24.12.2018. 6. That the ld. CIT (A) has erred in conforming interest of Rs. 450921/- u/s 234A and Rs. 482019 u/s 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That the appellant may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternate grounds at or before the time of appeal. 2. The brief facts

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

154 against the impugned order dated 24.12.2018. 6. That the ld. CIT (A) has erred in conforming interest of Rs. 450921/- u/s 234A and Rs. 482019 u/s 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That the appellant may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternate grounds at or before the time of appeal. 2. The brief facts

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

154 against the impugned order dated 24.12.2018. 6. That the ld. CIT (A) has erred in conforming interest of Rs. 450921/- u/s 234A and Rs. 482019 u/s 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That the appellant may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternate grounds at or before the time of appeal. 2. The brief facts

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

154 against the impugned order dated 24.12.2018. 6. That the ld. CIT (A) has erred in conforming interest of Rs. 450921/- u/s 234A and Rs. 482019 u/s 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That the appellant may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternate grounds at or before the time of appeal. 2. The brief facts

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

154 against the impugned order dated 24.12.2018. 6. That the ld. CIT (A) has erred in conforming interest of Rs. 450921/- u/s 234A and Rs. 482019 u/s 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That the appellant may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternate grounds at or before the time of appeal. 2. The brief facts

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

TDS credit after issuance intimation U/s 143(1) is not come under the purview I.T.A. No.316/Jodh/2023 5 Assessment Year: 2017-18 of section 154 of the Act related rectification apparent from the record. We further find that the entire demand U/s 154 is beyond jurisdiction. Therefore, considering the above, we set aside the appeal order and the demand amount

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.”

154 of the Act and is also appealable under section 246A. In absence of the power of authority to make such adjustment under section 200A of the Act, any calculation of the fee would not partake the character of the intimation under said provision and it could be argued that such an order would not be open to any rectification

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

7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in recording the findings which are contrary to material record and also against the principle of natural justice. The grounds raised by the appellant are inter-linked to each other where it has challenged the confirmation of disallowance of brought forward capital

CHHITAR MAL JAIN ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

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

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

154 and reduced the claim of exemption u/s 10(AA) (i) amount to Rs.3 lac. The amount to Rs.15,15,360/- was rejected and added back with the total income of the assessee. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) by challenging the order passed u/s 154/143(1) of the Act. But the assessee remained unsuccessful

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.

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 and interest of Rs. 16,016/- u/s 220 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has been

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

sections is mandatory but consequential to Income. The A O is directed to allow consequential relief to the assessee while giving effect to this appeal order. 9 The fifth ground of appeal is as under "The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings uis 274 and 271(1)(C) 9.1 The initiation of penalty is not appealable. The ground