M/S DEEPRAJ HOSPITAL P LTD,HATHRAS vs. ITO 3(5), HATHRAS

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act deserves to be quashed. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd reported in 331 ITR 236 has held that "Power to assess such other income only if income referred to in notice of reassessment

SH. YUGAL KISHOR AGARWAL,AGRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), ETAH

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

147. Notice u/s. 148 dated 26.03.2019 was issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee. The assessee submitted that return of income originally filed be treated as return of income filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee in reassessment

SURESH CHAND GUPTA,JHANSI vs. DCIT-6, JHANSI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

147 of the Act by way of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 13.10.2014 to the assessee in the reassessment

CHANDRA PRAKASH GOPLANI,BENGALURU vs. ITO 2(1)(1), AGRA

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment order dated29.11.2019passed by Assessing Officer u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the memo of appeal filed with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra reads as under : “1- BECAUSE the proceedings initiated u/s

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

u/s. 147 after expiry of four years. Therefore, the jurisdictional requirement under the first proviso to Section 147, having been not satisfied, renders the entire reopening proceedings jurisdictionally invalid, as the same are based on mere change of opinion not permissible under section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, the entire reassessment

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

u/s. 147 after expiry of four years. Therefore, the jurisdictional requirement under the first proviso to Section 147, having been not satisfied, renders the entire reopening proceedings jurisdictionally invalid, as the same are based on mere change of opinion not permissible under section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, the entire reassessment

VEERENDRA SINGH ,JALAUN vs. ITO,W 2(1)(5),ORAI, JALAUN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the manner as indicated above

Bench: Shri Ramit Kocharveerendra Singh, Income-Tax Officer, Vill. Dakor Mohana, Orai, Ward 2(1)(5), Orai, Distt. Jalaun (Up)-285001. V. Distt. Jalaun (Up) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bbjps 3108 J Appellant .. Respondent

reassessment order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 of the Act. 2. Grounds of appeal raised

A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. M/S WELCOME COIR INDUSTRIES LTD.,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act by the issuance of the notice u/s 148 dated 02.12.2009 by the DCIT

SAGAR DWELLINGS P LTD,NEAR SUN TEMPLE GWALIOR vs. ACIT, FACELESS

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

reassessment order dated 21.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred first appeal before

SMT. SARIKA SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment was resorted to. 12. We have heard the contentions of both the parties and carefully gone through the records and perused the case laws. 13. Undisputedly, the order found to be erroneous in the present case is the order passed u/s. 147

SHRI ATUL SRIVASTAVA,AGRA vs. PCIT-1, AGRA, AGRA

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

reassessment was resorted to. 12. We have heard the contentions of both the parties and carefully gone through the records and perused the case laws. 13. Undisputedly, the order found to be erroneous in the present case is the order passed u/s. 147

SHRI SIYARAM YADAV,MAINPURI vs. ITO 2(5), MAINPURI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

U/s 142(1) is enclosed for compliance.” 16. Thus, it is evident that initially, in response to the notice under section 147, instead of filing a return, the assessee filed the aforesaid reply dated 15.11.2010. Therein, the assessee objected to the initiation of reassessment

PARMANAND,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD, 2(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

reassessment order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer under section 147/144B, as the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 is bad in law and void ab initio, inter alia, for the reason that the reopening was initiated on the basis of mechanical and invalid approval, and without complying with mandatory conditions prescribed under section 147

DY.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA vs. M/S VACMET PACKAGINGS (INDIA) PVT. LTD., AGRA

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

reassess the above income.” 3. Against the said reasons and the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, the assessee had raised the following Ground No.2 (impugned order, page 2) before the ld. CIT(A): “Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in issuing notice u/s

M/S UMA GLASS WORKS ,FIROZABAD vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

reassessment was completed on 30.12.2017 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act by treating the net profit of Rs.19

M/S UMA GLASS WORKS,AGRA vs. PR.CIT.-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

reassessment was completed on 30.12.2017 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act by treating the net profit of Rs.19

RATNESH KUMAR JAIN,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ASHOK NAGAR, GWALIOR

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumar

147 were invoked. The re-assessment being framed without issuing notice u/s 143(2). The Id. CIT(A) did not adjudicated the legal grounds raised by the assessee. On merits, it is claimed that additions are made of Rs.1,28,13,500/- without proper examination of facts and without application of mind. It is also claimed that Reassessment

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL,FARUKHABAD vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, FARRUKHABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for AY 2017-18 and appeal of the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing)

reassessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30.03.2022 wherein an addition of Rs. 1,23,46,358/- being