ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI RAUNAK MARU, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

reassessment proceedings u/s 148 could not have been legally initiated for this year. As per the appellant section 153A opens with non obstante clause and exclude operation of some sections including section 147 and 148. For ready reference section 153A(1) is reproduced hereunder:- “153A(1) notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section

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

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

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

SMT. MEHA JAIN,JALGAON vs. DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Meha Jain Dcit(Central) 40, Jay Nagar, Jilha Peth Bhopal Vs. Jalgaon Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aeipj 3170 N Assessee By Shri P.D. Nagar, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.05.2023

147 will merge with the scope and ambit of the assessment u/s 153A of the Act. Thus, the jurisdiction of the AO to make the original assessment and assessment u/s 153A of the Act, so far as pending assessment are concerned, merges into one and consequently only one assessment shall be made on the basis of the finding

AGROH INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS P LTD,MHOW vs. PR CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Agroh Infrastructure Pr. Cit (Central) Developers Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal Aqua Point, A.B.Road, Vs. Umaria, Mhow, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaeca 2752 L Assessee By Shri Manish Mittal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023

13,050/-. The assessment was initially processed u/s 143(1) and thereafter, it was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act and reassessment order was passed on 03.03.2016. Thereafter, Pr. CIT invoked the provisions of section 263 against the reassessment order dated 03.03.2016, on the issue of loan transactions found recorded in the seized material

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

Section 292BB not applicable- Reassessment not valid- Income Tax Act,\n1961, ss.143,147,292BB 336 ITR 678 - CIT V/s Rajeev Sharma (Allahabad) (Case\nlaws Paper book pages 62-\n68) Reassessment - Procedure - Return in response to Notice_u/s_148 - Assessing\nOfficer (8 of 13) [ITA-197/2018] must apply his mind and issue Notice u/s_143(2) -\nProcedure must be followed strictly\nIncome

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

Appeal is allowed

section 147 of the\nAct. There is no cause or justification or belief that income has escaped\nassessment. No reference of any material or information obtained has been\nmentioned in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment.\nThus, assessment is reopened on the basis of without any tangible material and as\nsuch reassessment is not valid. In this regard, reliance

NARENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,BURHANPUR vs. PCIT INDORE-1, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninarendra Kumar Agrawal Pcit (1) 203, Ck Campus Aaykar Bhawan Bahadarpur Road Vs. Indore Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adapa0131B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

section 144B on 28.03.2022 as under: “The assessee, NARENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, had filed his return of income for the AY 2016- 17 declaring total income of Rs. 5,35,510/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 09.12.2018 accepting the returned income. 02. The case was re-opened for assessment u/s 147

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of assessee firm for the A.Y. 2013-14. In this case, a return of income was filed for the year under consideration and regular assessment u/s 143(3) was made on 13/11/2014. In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of the assessment year under consideration

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of assessee firm for the A.Y. 2013-14. In this case, a return of income was filed for the year under consideration and regular assessment u/s 143(3) was made on 13/11/2014. In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of the assessment year under consideration

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of assessee firm for the A.Y. 2013-14. In this case, a return of income was filed for the year under consideration and regular assessment u/s 143(3) was made on 13/11/2014. In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of the assessment year under consideration

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of assessee firm for the A.Y. 2013-14. In this case, a return of income was filed for the year under consideration and regular assessment u/s 143(3) was made on 13/11/2014. In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of the assessment year under consideration

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of assessee firm for the A.Y. 2013-14. In this case, a return of income was filed for the year under consideration and regular assessment u/s 143(3) was made on 13/11/2014. In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of the assessment year under consideration

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of assessee firm for the A.Y. 2013-14. In this case, a return of income was filed for the year under consideration and regular assessment u/s 143(3) was made on 13/11/2014. In this case more than four years have lapsed from the end of the assessment year under consideration