M/S CHARAN SINGH ICE & STORAGE P LTD,HATHRAS vs. ITO 3(5), HATHRAS

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

section 147 of the Act mandates that exclusively the satisfaction of the assessing authority based on some direct and relevant material could lay the foundation for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. According to the appellant, the AO has not applied his own mind and hence the assessment is not justified. I have considered all the facts and circumstances

LAKSHYA ICE & COLD STORAGE P LTD,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(5), ALIGARH

In the result, by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs.. Income Tax Officer, Goyal Bhawan, Opp. Maheshwari Inter Ward 1(5), Aligarh College, Sasni Gate, Bye Pass Road, Aligarh (Pan: Aabcl5656R) (Respondent) (Appellant)

section 147 of the Act mandates that exclusively the satisfaction of the assessing authorities based on some direct and relevant material could lay the foundation for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. According to the appellant, the AO has not applied his own mind and hence the assessment is not justified. 7 I have considered all the facts

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

147 of the Act read with sec. 143(3) of the Act, notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory. In the absence of notice u/s 143(2), it is obvious that no further proceedings can be continued for assessment u/s 143 and without such a notice, the Assessing Officer cannot assume jurisdiction and this I.T.A No. 117/Agra/2017 4 defect cannot

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

2 | P a g e Asst Year: 2012-13 Yugal Kishor Agarwal information and replies during the course of reassessment proceedings. The assessee was having income from salary, income from house property, Remuneration and interest from Partnership firm and income from other sources. While framing reassessment order u/s 147 read with Section 143(3) dated 24.10.2019, the Assessing Officer made

SMT. VIDHYA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. I.T.O., WARD-4(4), AGRA

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

15. The aforesaid reasons do not satisfy the requirements of Section 147 of the Act. The reasons and the information referred to is extremely scanty and vague. There is no reference to any document or statement, except Annexure, which has been quoted above. Annexure cannot be regarded as a material or evidence that prima facie shows or establishes nexus

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

2), 142(1) and 133(6) were issued, not only to the assessee but also directly to the share applicant. In response thereto, the assessee and the investor company furnished exhaustive details, including identity particulars, income-tax returns, audited financial statements, bank statements, share application forms, details of liquidation of investments and copies of assessment orders passed under section

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

2), 142(1) and 133(6) were issued, not only to the assessee but also directly to the share applicant. In response thereto, the assessee and the investor company furnished exhaustive details, including identity particulars, income-tax returns, audited financial statements, bank statements, share application forms, details of liquidation of investments and copies of assessment orders passed under section

JAWAHAR LAL AGARWAL,AGRA vs. I.T.O., WARD-4(2), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

reassessment…………………u/s 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice…………………” Section 148 (1), again, uses the expression ‘Assessing Officer’ which, as 14. considered above, is the expression defined in section 2(7A), to mean the authority exercising the relevant jurisdiction. Since the ACIT-1, Agra, did not have jurisdiction over the matter, he could

SHRI NARESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL,GWALIOR vs. ITO WARD 3(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2) of the Act, 1961”. In ‘CIT vs. Kalpaka Transport Co. Ltd.’, 287 ITR 15 (Ker), notice under 12. section 148 of the Act was issued on 17.01.1994. It was also served on 17.01.1994. The assessee sent letter dated 05.02.1994 to the AO, requesting that the return already filed be treated as filed in response to the notice under section

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

147 of the Act, notice u/s. 148 dated 30.03.2021 was issued seeking assessee to file return within 30 days. The assessee filed return of income belatedly on 25.12.2021 which was e-verified on 17.03.2022 in accordance with the clarification provided in CBDT Notification No. 5/2022 dated 29.07.2022 as per the answer given by the deptt. FAQ No. 6 which

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

2) was issued prior to framing of reassessment order. It was submitted that the reassessment is bad in law as the assessment was reopened on the ground that the assessee has shown lower turnover, while the additions have been made on the grounds of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account by invoking the provisions of section

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

147 of the Act, it cannot protect the three reassessment orders. Clause (b) applies where the assessee has not filed return originally u/s 139(1) of the Act. In such a case, the Assessing Officer can issue notice under section 148(1) of the Act, asking the assessee to file the return and in that situation, if the assessee does

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL,FARRUKHABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4(2)(1) FARRUKHABAD, 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)

15,63,030/- was sought to be added by the ld AO by treating it as income from other sources. 5. Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the submission made before the ld AO. The crux of the argument of the assessee before the ld CIT(A) and before us could be summarised as under

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)

15,63,030/- was sought to be added by the ld AO by treating it as income from other sources. 5. Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the submission made before the ld AO. The crux of the argument of the assessee before the ld CIT(A) and before us could be summarised as under

SAPNA CHAUHAN,ETAWAH vs. ITO, ETAWAH

In the result,both the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

reassessment. Accordingly, question no.1 is answered in favour of assessee and against the department. The Ld. Sr. D.R placed heavy reliance to the Judgment of Hon’ble 9. Delhi High Court and CIT vs. SafetagInternational India Pvt. Ltd.(supra) perusal of the case reveals that it nowhere lays down any proposition of law for which

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 the Ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s appeal and confirmed the impugned addition. 4 | P a g e 4. Present second appeal has been filed on the following grounds : “1. BECAUSE, upon due consideration of facts and in the overall

GHANSHYAM ,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2. ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: ‘S. Narayanappa vs. CIT’, 63 ITR 219 (SC). i. ‘Chhugamal Rajpal

GHANSHYAM ,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

2. ITA No.89/Del/2012. ‘Hari Ram Gupta vs. ITO’, ITA No.5111/Del/2013. 3. ‘Tara Alloys Ltd. Vs. ITO’, in ITA No.2421/Del/2017. 4. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the approval granted by the Additional CIT. The following decisions have been relied on: ‘S. Narayanappa vs. CIT’, 63 ITR 219 (SC). i. ‘Chhugamal Rajpal