DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

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

disallowing the exemptions claimed u/s 11 , Appellant-trust filed a rectification application U/s 154 before the ITO(Exemption), Jodhpur which

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed to the extent, vide rectification u/s 154. (3) Alternatively: how assessment completed u/s 143 (3), proceeding u/s 154 is not amenable

DINESH INFRASTRURCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

rectification- application u/s 154 against the intimation u/s 200A is absolutely barred in the scheme of the Act. We also observe that when the late-fee is not leviable in the law and on facts, by levying the same the assessees have been fastened with the liability beyond and against the scheme of the Act, which should not happen

DINESH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

rectification- application u/s 154 against the intimation u/s 200A is absolutely barred in the scheme of the Act. We also observe that when the late-fee is not leviable in the law and on facts, by levying the same the assessees have been fastened with the liability beyond and against the scheme of the Act, which should not happen

SUNIL KUMAR DOSHI,BARMER vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1,, BANGALORE / BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Making Assessment, Which Is Beyond Jurisdiction Of The Present Proceedings. 2. A. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 62,641/- Made By The Ld. Ao In 143(1) Order On Account Of Depreciation Claimed. B. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Decision Of Hon’Ble

disallowed in summary order. The conclusion can be taken only on the basis of detailed examination of the facts and circumstances and after detailed examination and are not subject matter of rectification proceedings. 1.3. In the landmark decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Volkart Brothers they have very elaborately defined the scope of powers u/s 154

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.”

rectification- application u/s 154 against the intimation u/s 200A is absolutely barred in the scheme of the Act. We also observe that when the late-fee is not leviable in the law and on facts, by levying the same the assessees have been fastened with the liability beyond and against the scheme of the Act, which should not happen

BHARAT MATA MANDIR NYAS,BANSWARA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

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

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

154 and claimed the deduction u/s 10(23C) (iiiad) of the Act. The ld. AR further challenged that the ld. AO has no jurisdiction to rejection the claim of deduction under the purview of processing of return section 143(1). I.T.A. No.163/Jodh/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2016-17 3.1 The ld. AR relied on the order of the Hon’ble Karnataka

AKBAR MOHAMMAD,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), JODHPUR

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

rectification of 143(1) intimation is possible and, therefore, the 154 application had rightly been rejected by the NFAC. 6.0 We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present cases, it is not in dispute that the assessee deposited the contribution of PF & ESI belatedly in terms of section

AKBAR MOHAMMAD,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), JODHPUR

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

rectification of 143(1) intimation is possible and, therefore, the 154 application had rightly been rejected by the NFAC. 6.0 We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present cases, it is not in dispute that the assessee deposited the contribution of PF & ESI belatedly in terms of section

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 deduction by the respective parties while making the advances but nevertheless, the receipts were

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 deduction by the respective parties while making the advances but nevertheless, the receipts were

DURGA PUROHIT,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

disallowance of Rs.2,23,895/- on account of late credit of Employees Provident Fund. Subsequently, the assessee filed rectification request u/s 154

ANAND SWAROOP MENAWAT,JODHPUR vs. CPC, BENGALURUE / ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

rectification order u/s 154 of the Act was passed on 13-11-2019 and AO made adjustment by disallowing deduction

ITO, EXEMPTION WARD,, JODHPUR vs. M/S. SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION CONSCIETISATION AWARENESS & TRAINING, NAGAUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri A. T. Varkeyincome Tax Officer, Vs M/S. Society For Education Exemption Ward, Jodhpur, Conscietisation Awareness & Room No. 56, Aayakar Training, Hodhgram, Bhawan, Paota ‘C’ Road, Kukanwali, Jodhpur Nagaur,Rajasthan Pan: Aadts6777M (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance of the exemption, filed an application u/s. 154 of the Act on-line on 09.09.2017 with CPC, Banglore requesting the AO to allow the exemption as claimed by the assessee in return of income filed by it. The AO (DCIT, CPC., Banglore) rejected the request for rectification

U AND T TRACTOR SPARES PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 28 & 29/JODH/2021 ITA No. 05, 28, 29 & 43/JODH/2021 11 Mohangarh Engineers and Construction Co. & Others vs. CPC 20. Heard

ANKUR NAHAR,BHILWARA vs. CIT/ ITO, WARD-2, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 174/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20

disallowed related to payment of PF and ESI as per provision of section 36(1) (viia) of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal with the ground that assessee is eligible for depreciation amount of I.T.A. No. 174/Jodh/2022 3 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Rs.3,69,595/-. As per the assessee, in the tax audit report and in computation wrongly claimed

AZIZ KHAN,ABU ROAD vs. ITO, ABU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Aziz Khan Vs The Ito Abu Road Abu

disallowing a sum of Rs.8,14,651/- on account of provident fund and ESI. However, the assessee filed the rectification request on 19-05-2020 u/s 154

ROYAL SUITINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-1, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed the depreciation on these additions and completed the assessment by stating that these are not plant & machinery but fails to allow as revenue expenditure against which filed appeal an appeal was dismissed. Royal Suiting Pvt. Ltd 3. That assessment was completed u/s 143(3) against which assessee preferred an appeal before CIT (A) Ajmer and appeal was dismissed