“Income-tax Officer”

M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd., Saraikela vs. Deputy Commissione of Income Tax, Circele-1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.75/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd.…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 29, Rain Basera, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Adityapur, Saraikela, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Aagca1031N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Jamshedpur (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 25.09.2017 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019–20 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹62,64,116. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. During The Relevant Previous Year, A Survey Operation Under Section 133A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted At The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 16.02.2019. Subsequently, Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time & Furnished Various Details & Documents As Called For. The Same Were Examined & Discussed By The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. During

decision of Hon’ble ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of Smt. Sekar Jayalakshmi I.T.A. No.75/Ran/2022 M/s Anjeneya Ispat Ltd vs. Income-tax Officer [2023] 150 taxmann.com 120 (Chennai - Trib.)[21- 12-2022] wherein it has been held as under:- 7. Both the sides have been heard, perused the materials

M/S Anjeneye Ispat Ltd., Saraikela vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jamshedpur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.74/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd.…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 29, Rain Basera, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Adityapur, Saraikela, Jharkhand – 831013. [Pan: Aagca1031N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur……....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Jamshedpur (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21.08.2018 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Manufacturing Of Pig Iron. It Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of ₹1,41,05,250, Which Was Processed Under Section 143(1). During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Assessee Had Received Share Capital & Share Premium Aggregating To ₹3,00,00,000 During The Relevant Previous Year. The Assessing Officer Issued Notices Under Sections 142(1) & 148 Requiring The Assessee To Furnish Complete Details Of The Share Applicants, Including Identity, Creditworthiness & Genuineness Of The Transactions. In Response, The Assessee Furnished Complete Details In Respect Of The Share Capital/Share Premium Received From The Following Parties:

Voluminous documents produced by the assessee cannot be discarded merely on the basis of statements of individuals contrary to such public documents. iii. Income-tax Officer vs. Cornerstone Property Investments (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 464 (SC)[15-07-2024] – SLP dismissed against order of High Court that where assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2 (1), Varanasi vs. Prominent Datamatics Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Varanasi

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

memo of C.O. filed with Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Varanasi (hereinafter called “the tribunal”), reads as under: “BECAUSE the order passed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Kolkata, suffers from the vice of lack of jurisdiction as the 'returned income of the 'Cross Objector/ Assessee’ was more than ... owing to which, Income tax jurisdiction stood vested with the Officer above the rank of Income-tax Officer, as per guide lines/instruction laid down in law and accordingly, the assessment order dated 23.09.2020 passed by Income-tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Kolkata, should have been held as void ab-initio

Bundelkhand Gramotthan Evam Shaikchhik Vikas Samiti, Jhansi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Exemption, Agra

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2021-22

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2021-22 Bundelkhand Gramotthan Evam Vs. Income-tax Officer, Shaikchhik Vikas Samiti, Ward Exemption, Jhansi Doodnath Nagar, Jhansi (UP). PAN : AABAB2248K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sahib P. Satsangee, C.A. Department

Late Shri Jai Prakash Rai, Jhansi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi

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

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18

TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pushpendra Kumar Rai, legal Vs. Income-tax Officer, Heir of Late Shri Jai Prakash Ward 2(3)(1), Jhansi. Rai, Village Badora, Babina, Jhansi-284003(UP). PAN :AFFPR7322Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee

Nayna Mukeshkumar Kotecha, Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statical purpose

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

issued by AO not having jurisdiction. Such notice forms basis of entire assessment. Assessment is quashed. iii. Adarsh Rice Mill vs. Income-tax Officer [2024] 167 taxmann.com 695 (Raipur - Trib.) [29-11-2022]: Held that if the initial notice (ie. Notice u/s. 148) is issued by an AO without jurisdiction

Sanoj Kumar Singh, Hajipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Vaishali

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

mere possibility of the appellant earning considerable amounts in the year under consideration was a pure conjecture on the part of the Income-tax Officer and the fact that the appellant indulged in speculation (in Kalai account) could not legitimately lead to the inference that the profit in a single ... could exceed the amounts, involved in the high denomination noted, - this also was a pure conjecture or surmise on the part of the Income-tax Officer. It is, therefore, clear that the Tribunal in arriving at the conclusion it did in the present case indulged in suspicion, conjectures and surmises

Damanjeet Singh Oberoi, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2015-16 Damanjeet Singh Oberoi Dcit, Circle 1(1), Raipur C/O Oberoi Tour & Travels, Shop No.1, Wali Mohd. Vs. Building, Kk Road, Moudhapara, Raipur – 492001 Pan: Aaepo3096L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal Department By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026

No.57209/2023. Further, our attention is also drawn to the decision of this Court in Spicy Sangria Hotels Pvt Ltd V/S Income-tax Officer [W.P.1325 of 2023 decided on 6th October 2025]. Once the Notice under Section 148 is bad in law, all the consequential orders/notices would also not survive