DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S AGRAWAL COAL CORP. PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

disallowed by the assessee in the respective years. The AO rejected the same on the premise that claims made through a revised return could only be entertained. He relied on the decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. The CIT(A) observed that the AO rejected the claim merely stating that since

DCIT !(1) INDORE, INDORE vs. AGRAWAL COAL CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE, INDORE

In the result all the three appeals of the revenue are

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

disallowed by the assessee in the respective years. The AO rejected the same on the premise that claims made through a revised return could only be entertained. He relied on the decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. The CIT(A) observed that the AO rejected the claim merely stating that since

NARAYAN SINGH NAYAK,JHABUA vs. THE ITO 2, RATLAM

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Narayan Singh Nayak, Ito-2, बनाम/ 1, Ranu Colony, Ratlam Jhabua Vs. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Abapn9853D Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhavar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 31.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04.09.2023

section 263. This newer order is passed by ITO-2, Ratlam [“Ratlam ITO or AO”] wherein he made certain new additions. Aggrieved by this newer assessment order, the assessee went in first appeal to CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has noted, in Para No. 3 and 3.1 of appeal-order, that the notices of hearing were served upon assessee