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

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 to Rs.4,68

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

THAR HEAT TRANSFER EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD. ,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavthar Heat Transfer Equipments Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur. B-13 To 16, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aacct 7832 L Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca & Shri Abhinav Kothari, Ca Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Jodhpur Dated 20/03/2020 For A.Y. 2015-16 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised: “1. The Ld. Pr. Cit Has Erred In Invoking Section 263 & The Setting Aside Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Is Bad In Law & Bad On Facts. The Order Made U/S 143(3) Cannot Be Said To Erroneous Or Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Was Made After Duly Examining The Issue Relating To Capital Gains & The Said Order Cannot Be Said To Be Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Or Revenue. The Allocation Of Value Of Sale Of Land Was On The Basis Of Valuation Adopted By The Stamp Authorities & Was Also Verifiable. The Ld. Pr. Cit Had Erred In Observing That The Appellant Had Taken The Higher Value Of Agriculture Land. 3. The Appellant Crave Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter, Or Modify Any Of The Ground Of Appeal On Or Before Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

rectification order was passed u/s 154 on 26.4.2018 rectifying the income to Rs. 35,87,112/-. 3. The assessee during the year had sold certain industrial land, factory building and agriculture land. On sale of land being long term capital gain was shown, and on factory building and plant and machinery being depreciable asset the computation of gain on transfer