M/S. KARNAWAT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, RAJSAMAND

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

154 r.w.s. 155( 11A) of the Act. M/s Karnawat International Pvt. Ltd. 5.1 The assessee had claimed exemption under section 10B of the Act. Assessee is a exporter for the A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made a disallowance

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

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

disallowance of deduction u/s 40(a)(ia) is outside the jurisdiction of Section 154 of the Act. 4. That on the facts

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? Copy of reply dated 04/05/2018 attached at Pg No 54 to 97. Yet the Ld. AO did not consider without considering case laws furnished. In first appeal, it has been argued on similar line like:  Provision of section

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

section 143(1) / 154 and on facts also the same is outside the scope of such adjustment. 1.2. It is well settled that no addition can be made in a order u/s 143(1) / 154 where detailed reasoning is required for making any addition. The disallowance

AZTEC SHIVA HANDICRAFTS & ARTS PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

section 154 and hence the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding such illegal action of Ld. AO. 04. Without prejudice to the above, even if the employees contribution to PF/ESI is not allowable u/s 36(1)(va) then the same is allowable u/s 37(1) as business expenditure. 05. That the appellant reserves the right to add, alter

M/S. SARDA GUMS & CHEMICALS,PALI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE1- PALI,, PALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(3)/154 of the Income Tax Act, by the ACIT, Circle- Pali. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO passed u/s 154 of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts

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

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

154 without providing any opportunity of hearing by the Assessing Officer. 2. Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law in arbitrarily confirming the Ld. AO's action in not rectifying the mistake as adjustments were made beyond the A.O. jurisdiction/ powers provided under clause (i) to (vi) of section 143(1)(a). 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred

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

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

154 without providing any opportunity of hearing by the Assessing Officer. 2. Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law in arbitrarily confirming the Ld. AO's action in not rectifying the mistake as adjustments were made beyond the A.O. jurisdiction/ powers provided under clause (i) to (vi) of section 143(1)(a). 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred

NAGAUR URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, NAGAUR

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

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blenagaur Urban Coop Bank Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1 Limited Nagaur - 341001 Head Office Bal Samand, Nagaur - 341001 Pan No. Aaaan 7788 B Assessee By None (Adjournment Application) Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 12.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Nfac/Cit Appeal”] Dated 27.09.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2022-23 Challenging Therein Disallowance Of Rs. 6,51,147/- By Cpc Invoking Provisions Of Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act.

disallowance of Rs. 6,51,147/- by CPC invoking provisions of Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. 2. None

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

disallowance of brought forward capital loss of Rs. 13,01,585/- and 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

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

154 and 147 of the Act. In the category stated\nin (a), obviously if an income escapes an assessment, the provisions Section 147 of\nthe Act can be invoked, subject to the condition stated in the proviso of the\nsection. In the category of cases falling in category (b), section 251(1)(a) provides\nthe CIT(A) could enhance such

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.”

section should be construed strictly and reasonably. The Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Shette vs. CIT (1984) 41 CTR (Bom) 393 : (1984) 150 ITR 460 (Bom), has also taken the same view. The Bombay High Court was dealing with a case where an application for renewal of registration was not signed by one of the partners

RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance can only be made from the materials\nfound during the time of search. It is in violation of the principles of natural\njustice, arbitrary, mechanical and without any independent application of mind and\nthe AO has not discharged the burden of proof, proving that the income\ndetermined and sought to be taxed were not from the materials seized during

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

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

154 and 147 of the Act. In the category stated\nin (a), obviously if an income escapes an assessment, the provisions Section 147 of\nthe Act can be invoked, subject to the condition stated in the proviso of the\nsection. In the category of cases falling in category (b), section 251(1)(a) provides\nthe CIT(A) could enhance such

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 154 dated 31.08.2018. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. That assessee company made addition in plant & machinery of Rs. 21, 45,124/- and claimed depreciation thereon. 2. That A.O. disallowed

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

section 154/ 143 (1) is without lawful assumption of jurisdiction as per law. 1.4 That the Ld ADIT, CPC erred in passing of an order u/s 154 / 143(1) without providing an opportunity is against the principles of natural justice and liable to quash. 2 The Ld CIT(A), NFAC further erred in upholding the disallowance

M/S. KUSHAL TRADERS,JODHPUR vs. ITO, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S Kushal Traders, Vs. Ito, Ward – 3(3), Rajendra Jain, Adv Jodhpur, Shatrunjay Hari Singh Rajasthan. Nagar, Pali Road, Jodhpur. Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aaefk7106R Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv.Ar Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit - Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Jodhpur Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 154 of the Act. 3] That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed by ld CIT (A) is bad in law and bad in facts. 4] That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld CIT (A) erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 68,610/- in respect of undisclosed

KHETPAL SAHARAN,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR, SRI GANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

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

disallowance of TDS Claim in the status of Kachha Adatiya by AO/CPC while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. 2. None appeared for the assessee. However, the assessee has filed a written submission dated 07.02.2025 stating therein that assessee would like to request permission to withdraw the appeal filed in this matter as the matter has been