“notice under section 148”

Asstt. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jodhpur vs. Jodhpur Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Blea.C.I.T., Circle-1, Jodhpur. Revenue By Assessee By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

Supreme Court in the case of "Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal", (Supra) observed that where Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 seeking to reopen assessment for assessment year 2015-16, in view of concession made by revenue before Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal

Amreli Jilla Madhyasth Sahakari Bank Ltd., Amreli vs. The DCIT-ACIT-2(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.548/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amreli Jilla Madhyasth Sahakari The Dcit/Acit-2(1) बनाम Bank Ltd. Rajkot. Bhojalram Bhavan Vs. Rajmahel Road Amreli 365 601. Pan : Aaata 2737 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M.Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-Dr

accepted by the AO in an assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act on 23.12.2016. Thereafter, the AO issued a notice under section 148 of the Act on 30.3.2021, and in response to that the assessee filed the return of income on 15-12-2021 declaring the same ... SBDD under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act of Rs.57,00,750/- being incorrect, and therefore the assessment was reopened by the notice under section 148 of the Act. The contention of the assessee that since the provision for reserve bad and doubtful doubts has been created

Sehkari Vipdan Samiti Maryadit, Narsinghpur vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

Rs.4,18,90,600/- during the financial year 2018-19 and received commission or brokerage of Rs.5,24,333/-, the ld. AO issued notice under section 148 to the assessee for the assessment year 20019-20. The ld. AO thereafter records the fact that though the assessee filed a return ... response to the notice under section 148 at rupees nil. Thereafter, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices sent by the ld. AO. Therefore, the ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment in a best judgment manner under the provisions of section 144 and he added

Sehkari Vipdan Samiti Maryadit, Narsinghpur vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

Rs.4,18,90,600/- during the financial year 2018-19 and received commission or brokerage of Rs.5,24,333/-, the ld. AO issued notice under section 148 to the assessee for the assessment year 20019-20. The ld. AO thereafter records the fact that though the assessee filed a return ... response to the notice under section 148 at rupees nil. Thereafter, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices sent by the ld. AO. Therefore, the ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment in a best judgment manner under the provisions of section 144 and he added

Sehkari Vipdan Samiti Maryadit, Narsinghpur vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

Rs.4,18,90,600/- during the financial year 2018-19 and received commission or brokerage of Rs.5,24,333/-, the ld. AO issued notice under section 148 to the assessee for the assessment year 20019-20. The ld. AO thereafter records the fact that though the assessee filed a return ... response to the notice under section 148 at rupees nil. Thereafter, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices sent by the ld. AO. Therefore, the ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment in a best judgment manner under the provisions of section 144 and he added

Sehkari Vipdan Samiti Maryadit, Narsinghpur vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, all four appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

Rs.4,18,90,600/- during the financial year 2018-19 and received commission or brokerage of Rs.5,24,333/-, the ld. AO issued notice under section 148 to the assessee for the assessment year 20019-20. The ld. AO thereafter records the fact that though the assessee filed a return ... response to the notice under section 148 at rupees nil. Thereafter, the assessee did not respond to any of the notices sent by the ld. AO. Therefore, the ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment in a best judgment manner under the provisions of section 144 and he added

Rajendra Singh Bagga, Damoh vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Katni

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

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Rajendra Singh Bagga, 15 43, Tandon Vs. National Faceless Assessment Bagicha, College Road, Gayatri Nagar, Centre, Delhi [Jurisdiction Damoh, M.P. Officer-Acit Katni-Circle, Katni Pan:Adgpb8418G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 14.10.2024 Whereby Learned Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Orders Of The Learned Ao Under Section 147 Read With Section 144 Dated 30.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing Ex- Party Order Without Providing Adequate Opportunity As Only Three Dates For Hearing Were Fixed & That Too In The Peak Periods Of Filling Of Tax Audits, Income Tax Returns & Accordingly Assessee Was Busy In Filling His Audit Report /Itr & Had Seeked Adjournment Also In This Regard. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Cit (A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of 6 Lacs Under Section 68, When Ao Himself Admitting In The Assessment Order That The Difference Of 5% 'Was Applicable As Allowable Difference Between Circle Rate & Actual Rate Of Purchase Of Property. Hence Forth The Addition Of Rs 6 Lacs Should Have Been Deleted By Ao.

opinion, attracted the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) to the extent of Rs. 5,99,420/-. He issued a notice under section 148 and subsequent notices including a show cause notice to the assessee, in response of which the assessee furnished his replies. However

Mandeep Singh S/O Sh. Narinder Singh Village and Post Office Tarmala Malout District Muktsar, Muktsar vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(5) Muktsar Jao Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2) Muktsar, Muktsar

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

718/Chd/2022 and Others wherein in para 93 at pages-152 & 153 it has been held as under: “93 Therefore, the issuance of notice under section 148 on the basis of the statement or the documents seized during the search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act on a third

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Vedmutha Electricals India Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

assessee of Rs. 1 crore that was chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 29.06.2021 was issued to the assessee company. The assessee company in compliance to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Vedmutha Electricals India Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

assessee of Rs. 1 crore that was chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 29.06.2021 was issued to the assessee company. The assessee company in compliance to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated

ACIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Vedmutha Electricals India Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

assessee of Rs. 1 crore that was chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 29.06.2021 was issued to the assessee company. The assessee company in compliance to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated

The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Vedmutha Electricals India Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

assessee of Rs. 1 crore that was chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 29.06.2021 was issued to the assessee company. The assessee company in compliance to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated

ACIT, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. Vedmutha Electricals India Private Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Us:

assessee of Rs. 1 crore that was chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, initiated proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 29.06.2021 was issued to the assessee company. The assessee company in compliance to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated

Income Tax Officer-1(1), Indore vs. Anant Steel Private Limited, Indore

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT