LATE SMT SUSHILA BISARYA, BHOPAL vs. THE PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

In the result, we are Shri Jignesh Lilachand Shah vs

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanilate Smt. Sushila Bisarya Pr. Cit-1 L.H. Pramod Bisarya Bhopal Vs. 125 Malviya Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aewpb 2587 D Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2023

reassessment order in the name of dead person. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ITO vs. Durlabhbhai Kanubhai Rajpara (supra) has dismissed the SLP filed by the revenue against the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court reported in 114 taxmann.com 482 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has considered this issue in para

ABHISHEK DHANOTIA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

292B. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manish Maheshwari - [2007] 289 ITR 341 - order pronounced on 23.02.2007 wherein it is held that if procedure laid down in Section 158BD is not followed, the block assessment proceedings would be illegal. The provisions of section 153C are exactly similar to provisions of section

M/S SAHARAYAN UNIVERSAL MULTIPURPOSE SOCITY LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Saharayan Universal Pcit-1, Multipurpose Society Bhopal Limited, बनाम/ 195, Zone-1, In Front Of D.B. Mall, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aakas 6209 A Assessee By Shri P.K. Bansal, Ld. Ar Revenue By None Date Of Hearing 26.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

section 292B and 292BB would apply squarely here. The provisions are reproduced as under:- 292B. No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall

SUNIL SAHU,RAIPUR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment has been recorded as s. 147(b), the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal observed that this showed that the AO had filled proforma in a mechanical manner and the learned CIT(A) has also approved the same mechanically. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the various Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal as well

THE ACIT CENTRAL -1, BHOPAL vs. SHRI SUNIL SAHU , RAIPUR

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment has been recorded as s. 147(b), the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal observed that this showed that the AO had filled proforma in a mechanical manner and the learned CIT(A) has also approved the same mechanically. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the various Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal as well

SUNIL SAHU,RAIPUR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment has been recorded as s. 147(b), the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal observed that this showed that the AO had filled proforma in a mechanical manner and the learned CIT(A) has also approved the same mechanically. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the various Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal as well

SUNIL SAHU,RAIPUR vs. ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, BHOPAL

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

reassessment has been recorded as s. 147(b), the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal observed that this showed that the AO had filled proforma in a mechanical manner and the learned CIT(A) has also approved the same mechanically. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the various Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal as well

VIRENDRA SINGH THRU LEGAL HEIR SANGEETA THAKUR,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanivirendra Singh

reassess under Section 147 of the Act. The want of valid notice affects the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to proceed with the assessment and thus, affects the validity of the proceedings for assessment or reussessment. A notice issued under Section 148 of the Act against a dead person is invalid, unless the legal representative submits to the jurisdiction

PARAMETRIC TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S.Parametric Trading A.C.I.T., Pvt.Ltd., Circle 4(1), 205, Sujata Chambers, 2Nd Indore. Floor, Abhichand Gandhi Vs. Marg,Off Katha Bazar Masjid (W), Mumbai (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Shailesh Parmar, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2023

section 148. 8.2 Thus reassessment completed without furnishing the reasons actually recorded by the A.O. for reopening of assessment is not sustainable in law because the A.O. is duty bound to supply the same within reasonable time as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (supra). The subsequent supply of the reasons would

M/S SHREE COAL ENTERPRISES (I) PVT. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

292B of the Act. This finding of the Ld. CIT (A) is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT and Another Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory,359 ITR 565(Kar.) (supra). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held as under:- “ 63. In the light of what is stated

M/S KETI SANGAM INFRASTRUCTURE (I) LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

292B of the Act. This finding of the Ld. CIT (A) is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT and Another Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory,359 ITR 565(Kar.) (supra). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held as under:- “ 63. In the light of what is stated

M/S KETI SANGHAM INFRASTRUTURE (I) LIMITED,INDORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), INDORE

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

292B of the Act. This finding of the Ld. CIT (A) is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT and Another Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory,359 ITR 565(Kar.) (supra). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held as under:- “ 63. In the light of what is stated

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

292B of the Act. This finding of the Ld. CIT (A) is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT and Another Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory,359 ITR 565(Kar.) (supra). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held as under:- “ 63. In the light of what is stated

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

292B of the Act. This finding of the Ld. CIT (A) is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT and Another Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory,359 ITR 565(Kar.) (supra). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held as under:- “ 63. In the light of what is stated

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

292B of the Act. This finding of the Ld. CIT (A) is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT and Another Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory,359 ITR 565(Kar.) (supra). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held as under:- “ 63. In the light of what is stated

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

292B of the Act. This finding of the Ld. CIT (A) is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT and Another Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory,359 ITR 565(Kar.) (supra). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held as under:- “ 63. In the light of what is stated

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

292B of the Act. This finding of the Ld. CIT (A) is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT and Another Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory,359 ITR 565(Kar.) (supra). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held as under:- “ 63. In the light of what is stated

SHRI GAURAV SHARMA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

292B of the Act. This finding of the Ld. CIT (A) is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT and Another Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory,359 ITR 565(Kar.) (supra). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held as under:- “ 63. In the light of what is stated