M/S JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-II, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Dy. Cit, Limited Central-Ii, [Formerly Known As ‘Jay Jyoti Bhopal (India) Pvt. Ltd.’] बनाम/ 26, Col. Biswas Road, Ground Floor, Vs. West Side Flat, Kolkata (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacj 8822 E Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

259 ITR 19( S.C.). (ii) That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of ld. AO in passing the impugned reassessment order u/s 144/147, is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law, illegal, unjustified, against the principles of natural justice, void ab initio and barred by limitation also. (iii) That

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

section 148 is not a substitute for the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice u/s. 153C. In support of his contention, the AR relied upon various judicial pronouncements. 17. The CIT(DR) vehemently argued that in the instant appeals, notices u/s. 148 have rightly been issued and further, the reassessment proceedings in pursuance of such notices have validly been carried

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

section 148 is not a substitute for the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice u/s. 153C. In support of his contention, the AR relied upon various judicial pronouncements. 17. The CIT(DR) vehemently argued that in the instant appeals, notices u/s. 148 have rightly been issued and further, the reassessment proceedings in pursuance of such notices have validly been carried

RAMESH CHAND PATNI,INDORE vs. THE ITO 5(5), INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], the assessee has filed these appeals. 2. When the cases were called, none appeared on behalf of assessee although the Ld. DR representing the revenue was ready to argue. Ld. DR Page 1 of 6 Ramesh Chand Patni ITA No.367 & 368/Ind/2022 Assessment year 2011-12 & 2012-13 submitted that the matters

RAMESH CHAND PATNI,INDORE vs. THE ITO 5(5), INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

section 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], the assessee has filed these appeals. 2. When the cases were called, none appeared on behalf of assessee although the Ld. DR representing the revenue was ready to argue. Ld. DR Page 1 of 6 Ramesh Chand Patni ITA No.367 & 368/Ind/2022 Assessment year 2011-12 & 2012-13 submitted that the matters