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

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 to the assets acquired prior to OTS but there cannot be disallowance

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

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 to the assets acquired prior to OTS but there cannot be disallowance

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

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 to the assets acquired prior to OTS but there cannot be disallowance

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

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 to the assets acquired prior to OTS but there cannot be disallowance

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

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 to the assets acquired prior to OTS but there cannot be disallowance

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

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 to the assets acquired prior to OTS but there cannot be disallowance

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

5. We would first take up the legal ground through which it is commonly pleaded that the alleged notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law as the Assessing Officer has not specified the charge against the assessee as to whether the 6 Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016

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

5. We would first take up the legal ground through which it is commonly pleaded that the alleged notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law as the Assessing Officer has not specified the charge against the assessee as to whether the 6 Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016

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

5. We would first take up the legal ground through which it is commonly pleaded that the alleged notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law as the Assessing Officer has not specified the charge against the assessee as to whether the 6 Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016

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

reassessment proceedings firstly, stating that the proceedings are time barred secondly, that no valid approval u/s 148 of the Act has been taken and thirdly, there was no proper reason to believe about escapement of income for initiating proceedings u/s 148 of the Act. Submissions filed by the assesse on these three legal issues reads as under: 5 Smt. Nilima

ANJU JAIN, LR SUSHIL JAIN,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

5. In the earlier case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) their lordship had observed as under:- “Notice under section 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

5. In the earlier case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) their lordship had observed as under:- “Notice under section 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned

ANJU JAIN, LR SHRI SUSHIL JAIN ,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

5. In the earlier case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) their lordship had observed as under:- “Notice under section 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned

MUKESH KUMAR RANKA,INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UJJAIN, UJJAIN, MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are allowed

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

5. In the earlier case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) their lordship had observed as under:- “Notice under section 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned

THE ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL vs. DB POWER LTD, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Db Power Limited, Acit, Central Circle-1, बनाम/ Office Block, 1A, Bhopal Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Acit, Central Circle-1, M/S Db Power Limited, बनाम/ Bhopal Office Block, 1A, Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

DB POWER LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Db Power Limited, Acit, Central Circle-1, बनाम/ Office Block, 1A, Bhopal Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Acit, Central Circle-1, M/S Db Power Limited, बनाम/ Bhopal Office Block, 1A, Vs. Db City Park, 5Th Floor, Corporate Block, Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone-1, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Pan:Aaccd5475F) (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent)

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

M/S. SANWARIA AGROILS LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

reassessment proceedings initiated were without any jurisdiction and the same is liable to be annulled. However, ongoing through the reasons, the Ld. CIT (A) noted that in the copy of reasons supplied to the appellant, in the footer of each page the following were so mentioned “Reply-HM note -23.11.2011-ACIT-1 (1)”. On the perusal of the copy

SHRI PANKAJ KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, OSD (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

5…………..It is clear from the Sub Section (3) of Section 271 AAB that Sections 274 and Section 275 of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply. Sub Section (1) of Section 274 of the Act mandates that order imposing penalty has to be imposed only after hearing the assessee or giving a assessee opportunity of hearing. Opportunity