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

MS. SANGEETA CHOPRA,UJJAIN vs. THE PR. CIT. UJJAIN, UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

46,000 Less : Deduction u/s. 54 of the 6,75,000 6,75,000 Act (Construction at 122, Tilak Path, Mahidpur) Taxable Capital Gain Nil Nil 4. Being satisfied with the documents produced by the assessee and the reply filed by her the deduction under Section 54 as claimed was allowed on 27.10.2016 and the re-assessment under Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

reassessment proceedings. We are unable to accept that is the true position in law. In our opinion the decision of the Andra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bavuri V. Narasimhan, (1) relied on by the assessee was not correctly decided. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow these appeals, vacate the answers given by the High

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5(1), INDORE vs. M/S SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. , INDORE

In the result both the appeals of the revenue vide ITA No

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

reassessment proceedings. We are unable to accept that is the true position in law. In our opinion the decision of the Andra Pradesh High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bavuri V. Narasimhan, (1) relied on by the assessee was not correctly decided. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow these appeals, vacate the answers given by the High

NILIMA KOTHARI,INDORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSTT. CENTRE, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

46,824/- only hence notice issued on 19.04.2021 was barred by time and order passed based on such notice deserves to be quashed. 03) Issue: Validity of approval of Notice under section 148 of the Act: That the Commissioner of Income tax (A) erred in law in not appreciating the fact that notice under section

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

46 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others of the assessee was reopened and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 18.12.2017 and served on the assessee. The assessee filed its income-tax return on 20.01.2018 in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act claiming total loss

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

46 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others of the assessee was reopened and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 18.12.2017 and served on the assessee. The assessee filed its income-tax return on 20.01.2018 in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act claiming total loss

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

46 Surya Infraventure ITA 216 of 2021 and others of the assessee was reopened and notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 18.12.2017 and served on the assessee. The assessee filed its income-tax return on 20.01.2018 in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act claiming total loss

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)

46 (Delhi HC), relevant paras are as under: “THE SINE QUA NON FOR ACQUIRING JURISDICTION TO REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT IS THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 SHOULD BE ISSUED TO A CORRECT PERSON AND NOT TO A DEAD PERSON. CONSEQUENTLY, THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, 1961 OF SERVICE OF NOTICE WAS NOT FULFILLED IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassessment if any relating to any relevant assessment year or years referred to in this subsection pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be shall abate.” This makes it further abundantly clear that only those assessments which are pending abate. Hence sanguine provisions

MANISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassessment if any relating to any relevant assessment year or years referred to in this subsection pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be shall abate.” This makes it further abundantly clear that only those assessments which are pending abate. Hence sanguine provisions

ASHISH CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassessment if any relating to any relevant assessment year or years referred to in this subsection pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be shall abate.” This makes it further abundantly clear that only those assessments which are pending abate. Hence sanguine provisions

PAWAN KUMAR CHHAPARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO BURHANPUR, BURHANPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

reassessment if any relating to any relevant assessment year or years referred to in this subsection pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be shall abate.” This makes it further abundantly clear that only those assessments which are pending abate. Hence sanguine provisions

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

46 (Jodhpur) (Trib). In viewof the facts of the case and legal position on this issue, it is therefore, prayed that the proposal of reassessment by invoking the provisions of section