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

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

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

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

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

3). Further held that section 292BB cannot cure complete absence of notice. (b) Harman Singh Dhingra Vs. ACIT, New Delhi (2021) 132 taxmann.com 40 (Delhi – ITAT), order dated 24.09.2021: Held: “5…..The Ld. AR further submitted that the reassessment u/s 147 will be invalid, if no notice u/s 143

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

143(3) of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act were issued after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the respective assessment years then the reopening of the reassessment is hit by the proviso to Section 147

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

143(3) of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act were issued after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the respective assessment years then the reopening of the reassessment is hit by the proviso to Section 147

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

143(3) of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act were issued after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the respective assessment years then the reopening of the reassessment is hit by the proviso to Section 147

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

143(3) of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act were issued after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the respective assessment years then the reopening of the reassessment is hit by the proviso to Section 147

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

143(3) of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act were issued after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the respective assessment years then the reopening of the reassessment is hit by the proviso to Section 147

JAYANTILAL SANGHVI,INDORE vs. ACIT 4(1), INDORE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 Jayantilal Sanghvi, Acit, 8/10, Warehouse Road, 4(1), बनाम/ Patel Bridge, Indore. Vs. Indore. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Agtps5825Q Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2024

reassessment order dated 13-12- 2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, there is a reference to the fact that previously section 143(3) assessment order had been framed on 24-12-2011. (iii) Lastly and more importantly, the reopening was triggered, based on a statement made by one Mr Sanjeeva Kumar Sinha, Director

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

reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.s.s. 143(3) on 03.03.2016. The issue on which the second revision order is passed was Page 2 of 16 Agroh Infrstructure Developers P. Ltd. Page 3 of 16 not an issue in the first revision order passed u/s 263 of the Act and therefore, it was neither subject matter of the revision order passed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI RITESH JAIN, INDORE

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani & It(Ss)Ano.14/Ind/2022 (Assesssment Year 2011-12

reassessment framed by the AO u/s 147 r.w. section 143(3) without a valid notice u/s 143(2) is not valid

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

section 153A(1) of the Act and consequently the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 19.02.2014 is invalid and liable to be quashed. He has referred to the notice issued u/s 148 on 22.03.3013 and submitted that thereafter a search and seizure action u/s 132(1) was carried on 16.05.2013 when the reassessment

THE ITO-2(2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed on both

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

reassess the income of the assessee u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act. The basic requirement of section

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. PRAKASH ASPHALTINGS & TOLL HIGHWAYS (INDIA) LTD., MHOW

In the result, assessee’s ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Acit (Central)-1 Of Highway (India) Ltd., Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Central-1, Prakash Asphaltings & Indore Toll Of Highway (India) बनाम/ Ltd., 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee)

reassessment order dated 03.03.2016 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act was without jurisdiction. The appellant prays that the order dated 03.03.2016 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act be quashed as without jurisdiction.” 15. Challenging the order of first-appeal referred to in above paragraph No. 13, the revenue has come

M/S. PRAKASH ASHPHLTING & TOO HIGHWAY LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Acit (Central)-1 Of Highway (India) Ltd., Indore बनाम/ 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Central-1, Prakash Asphaltings & Indore Toll Of Highway (India) बनाम/ Ltd., 76, Mall Road, Vs. Mhow (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee)

reassessment order dated 03.03.2016 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act was without jurisdiction. The appellant prays that the order dated 03.03.2016 under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act be quashed as without jurisdiction.” 15. Challenging the order of first-appeal referred to in above paragraph No. 13, the revenue has come

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

3 are raised by the Revenue challenging the observations of the Ld. CIT(A) to the effect that the reassessment u/s 148 of the Act could not have been made since the assessment was completed u/s 153A of the Act and also the observation that the present reopening is only change of opinion since the impugned amount was already assessed