JAGDISH SOLANKI ,JHABUA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER JHABUA, JHABUA

Appeal is dismissed

u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act. The appellant did not furnish army reply to the notices issued by the AO. However, during the appellate proceedings, he has furnished voluminous detail and documents with request to accept these additional evidences under Rule 46A. In the interest of natural justice, the details and documents furnished

GOUTAM MEDICOSE,DHAR vs. ITO, DHAR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

u/s 147 r.w.s 144B on 13.03.2023 is bad in law and bad on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances and in the law, the Ld. AO lacked jurisdiction to issue notices for reassessment and pass assessment order for an non-existing partnership firm which may please be held as bad in law and against the natural principal of justice

GOUTAM MEDICOSE,DHAR vs. PARTNER OF ERSTWHILE FIRM, DHAR

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

u/s 147 r.w.s 144B on 13.03.2023 is bad in law and bad on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances and in the law, the Ld. AO lacked jurisdiction to issue notices for reassessment and pass assessment order for an non-existing partnership firm which may please be held as bad in law and against the natural principal of justice

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

reassessment now sought to be done was merely a change in opinion. 15. However, the AO turned down objections of assessee through letter dated 05.11.2019, copy at Page 26A-26C of Paper-Book. Ld. AR submitted in this letter, the AO has basically mentioned that the case had been re- opened on the basis of subsequent scrutiny-assessment

MS MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD,BHOPAL vs. ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

reassessment now sought to be done was merely a change in opinion. 15. However, the AO turned down objections of assessee through letter dated 05.11.2019, copy at Page 26A-26C of Paper-Book. Ld. AR submitted in this letter, the AO has basically mentioned that the case had been re- opened on the basis of subsequent scrutiny-assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT. LTD., BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

reassessment now sought to be done was merely a change in opinion. 15. However, the AO turned down objections of assessee through letter dated 05.11.2019, copy at Page 26A-26C of Paper-Book. Ld. AR submitted in this letter, the AO has basically mentioned that the case had been re- opened on the basis of subsequent scrutiny-assessment

MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD ,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT -2- (1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL

Appeals are dismissed

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

reassessment now sought to be done was merely a change in opinion. 15. However, the AO turned down objections of assessee through letter dated 05.11.2019, copy at Page 26A-26C of Paper-Book. Ld. AR submitted in this letter, the AO has basically mentioned that the case had been re- opened on the basis of subsequent scrutiny-assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 5(1), BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

reassessment now sought to be done was merely a change in opinion. 15. However, the AO turned down objections of assessee through letter dated 05.11.2019, copy at Page 26A-26C of Paper-Book. Ld. AR submitted in this letter, the AO has basically mentioned that the case had been re- opened on the basis of subsequent scrutiny-assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 1, BHOPAL , BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH vs. MAPAEX REMEDIES PVT LTD, BHOPAL MADHYA PRADESH

Appeals are dismissed

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

reassessment now sought to be done was merely a change in opinion. 15. However, the AO turned down objections of assessee through letter dated 05.11.2019, copy at Page 26A-26C of Paper-Book. Ld. AR submitted in this letter, the AO has basically mentioned that the case had been re- opened on the basis of subsequent scrutiny-assessment

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 5, SEHORE, SEHORE

In the result, the impugned order is set aside as & by way of\nremand back to the file of the Ld

natural justice. It\ntherefore deserves to be set aside. It was contended that the\nassessee is an individual. He is doing trading of grains. He also\ndoes trading of “Soyabean”. The assessee had deposited cash of\nRs. 3,45,00,000/- in his bank account which is current bank A/c\nof the assessee. During the course of the assessment\nproceedings

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

justice and\nequity.\n5. For the ease of reference, the above referred Rule 27 Is reproduced herein\nbelow:\n\"Respondent may support order on grounds decided against him.\n27. The respondent, though he may not have appealed, may support the\norder appealed against on any of the grounds decided against him.\"\n6. The assessee relies upon following decisions in respect

DCIT KHANDWA, KHANDWA vs. M/S RAJRAJESHWAR COTTON CORPORATION, SENDHWA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as Assessee’s Cross-

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) & C.O. No. 9/Ind/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit M/S Raj Rajeshwar Cotton Khandwa Corporation, बनाम/ Warla Road, Sendhwa, Vs. District - Khandwa (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aagfr 6243 N Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.10.2022

natural justice and renders the reopening void." (vii) ITO vs Reliance Corporation (2017) 55 ITR 69 (SN) (Mumbai) [Trib]. Reassessment solely made on the basis of information received from investigation wing as assessee as beneficiaries of accommodation entries was held to be valid when no cross examination allowed to the assessee.” 02- The AO had made change of opinion

RAJESH KUMAR RATHORE,SEHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, SEHORE, SEHORE

nature, lacks\ncorroborative evidence beyond an affidavit, and does\nnot inspire confidence that the delay was due to\nreasons entirely beyond the appellant's control.\nHence, the reason stated can't be relied upon and\ntherefore, as provided in the section 249(3) of the IT\nAct, I am not satisfied that the appellate had sufficient\ncause for not presenting

SMT MANORAMA SINGHAL,INDORE vs. ITO-3(2), INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITANo

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Years: 2013-14

natural justice. Accordingly, the Appellant prays that the said addition be deleted. 6.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer determining total income at Rs.4526530/as against declared income of Rs. 880350/-, which is bad in law and excessive. 7.The Appellant craves leave

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

u/s 147 is bad in law for want of jurisdiction in the light of first proviso to Ferro Concrete Construction P. Ltd. . ITA No.439/Ind/2017 & others section 147 and in the absence of cogent reasons to form belief that the assessee’s income had escaped assessment and also in the light of the fact that the AO deviated from his stand

M/S. FERRO CONCRETE CON. INDIA PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

u/s 147 is bad in law for want of jurisdiction in the light of first proviso to Ferro Concrete Construction P. Ltd. . ITA No.439/Ind/2017 & others section 147 and in the absence of cogent reasons to form belief that the assessee’s income had escaped assessment and also in the light of the fact that the AO deviated from his stand

SARTHAK REAL BUILT PVT. LTD, ,INDORE vs. DY, CIT,CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

u/s 147 is bad in law for want of jurisdiction in the light of first proviso to Ferro Concrete Construction P. Ltd. . ITA No.439/Ind/2017 & others section 147 and in the absence of cogent reasons to form belief that the assessee’s income had escaped assessment and also in the light of the fact that the AO deviated from his stand

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (1), INDORE vs. M/S FERRO CONCREATE CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

u/s 147 is bad in law for want of jurisdiction in the light of first proviso to Ferro Concrete Construction P. Ltd. . ITA No.439/Ind/2017 & others section 147 and in the absence of cogent reasons to form belief that the assessee’s income had escaped assessment and also in the light of the fact that the AO deviated from his stand