ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation

S T I INDIA LTD.,INDORE vs. ACIT-5(1), INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation

ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. S T I INDIA LTD., INDORE

Appeals are disposed of as under:

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

37,375/- claimed by assessee in current year vide Para No. 5 of assessment-order. During first-appeal, Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the observation of AO but, however, he made some modification. He observed that that the AO was wrong in disallowing full depreciation. He took a view that the disallowance has to be restricted in relation

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

reassess the same. However, if the assessment for any of the assessment years falling within 6 years has attained finally and not pending on the date of search then the same cannot be subjected to tax in the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act in the absence of any incriminating material gathered in the course of search and seizure operation

SANJEEV AGRAWAL ,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

reassessment proceedings.”\nThus, in the light of judicial rulings cited above, it is clear that the\nAO's action of resorting to re-assessment u/s 147 by-passing the\ncompulsory scrutiny mandated by CBDT Instruction, is invalid and hence\nthe assessment framed by AO u/s 147 cannot be sustained. Therefore, we\nquash the order passed by AO. The assessee succeeds

INCOME TAX OFFICER , RAISEN, RAISEN vs. LATE SUDHA AGRAWAL TH. L/H MANMOHAN AGRAWAL, RAISEN

Appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniincome-Tax Officer, Late Smt. Sudha Agrawal, बनाम/ Raisen (L/H: Manmohan Agrawal) Vs. 19/1, Shreeji Enterprise, Near Sbi, Sagar Road, Yashwant Nagar, M.P. (Pan: Abfpa4355G) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

reassessment. A notice issued under Section 148 of the Act against a dead person is invalid, unless the legal representative submits to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer without raising any objection." Consequently, in view of the above, a reopening notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 issued in the name of a deceased assessee is null and void

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act. The Cross Objections of the assessee stand disposed off being allowed. Revenue’s Appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2020- 21 and 2018-19: 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and submitted that section 80IB(11A) provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking deriving profit from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act. The Cross Objections of the assessee stand disposed off being allowed. Revenue’s Appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2020- 21 and 2018-19: 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and submitted that section 80IB(11A) provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking deriving profit from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act. The Cross Objections of the assessee stand disposed off being allowed. Revenue’s Appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2020- 21 and 2018-19: 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and submitted that section 80IB(11A) provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking deriving profit from

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act. The Cross Objections of the assessee stand disposed off being allowed. Revenue’s Appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2020- 21 and 2018-19: 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and submitted that section 80IB(11A) provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking deriving profit from

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. PRATAAP SNACKS LIMITED, INDORE

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross-objection is allowed

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

reassessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act. The Cross Objections of the assessee stand disposed off being allowed. Revenue’s Appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2020- 21 and 2018-19: 11. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and submitted that section 80IB(11A) provides for deduction in the case of an undertaking deriving profit from

THE DCIT ,CENTRAL-1, BHOPAL vs. M/S VATIKA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit (Central)-I, M/S. Vatika Builders & Bhopal Developers, Vatika Parisar, बनाम/ Near Petrol Pump, Vs. Lalghati, Bhopal

reassessment u/s 147 will be invalid, if no notice u/s 143(2) was issued and will not be save even by section 292BB, even if the assessee participates in the proceedings. The Revenue can avail section 292BB only if notice u/s 143(2) was issued and not when admitted position is that no notice was issued as in the instant

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL.,JT.,DY.,ASSTT.ITO, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

sections": [ "147", "148", "143(3)", "43B", "36(1)(va)", "40(b)", "139", "140b", "37(4)", "114", "153" ], "issues": "Whether reassessment

SANTOSH RATHORE,INDORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

Section 151 (ii) of the Act. The revenue cannot\ndispute the fact that identical issue was decided against the\nDepartment in the case of Siemens Financial Services (P)Ltd. Vs.\nDeputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (2023) 155 taxmann.com 159\n(Bombay). This Court also had an occasion to consider similar issue\nin (2024) 159 taxmann.com 5 (Bombay). The decision

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

reassessment is non-supply of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening of assessment. There is no doubt that the Assessing Officer recorded the reasons on 31/01/2007 for reopening of the assessment and Page 19 of 25 Prametric Trading Co.P.Ltd.,Indore 20 A.Y.2011-12 accordingly issued a notice under section 148. The regions as recorded by the Assessing Officer