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

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 as there

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

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 as there

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

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 as there

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

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 as there

SANJEEV AGRAWAL ,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-2, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

u/s 147 must be\ndeclared as invalid and quashed therefore.\n10. Per contra, Ld. DR for revenue filed following written-submission and\nrelied upon same:\n\"8.01 VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION

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

u/s 148 dated 22.03.2013 were pending on the date of search i.e. 16.05.2013. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings pending on the date of search stood abated by virtue of 2nd proviso to section 153A(1). For the sake of completeness section 153A(1) with proviso is quoted as under: Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section

SHRI SANDEEP MEHTA,NEEMUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEEMUCH

In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative i

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradिनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 वष" Shri Sandeep Mehta, The Income Tax Officer, S/O. Shri Jay Singh Mehta, Vs Neemuch Vijay Talkies Chouraha, Neemuch (Mp) Pan : Adbpm 8174 B "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Agrawal & Shri Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17 /08/2021 आदेश/O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Ujjain (Mp) Dated 28.11.2017 Passed For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In The First Ground Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged Reopening Of Assessment By Issuance Of Notice Under Section 148 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, While Impugning The Orders Of The Revenue Authorities, Contended That The Assessment Was Reopened For The Reason That The Assessee Has Made Cash Deposits Amounting To Rs.11,00,000/-, Without Disclosing The Source Of Deposits & This

u/s 148 is being issued. (K.P. Vaishya) Income Tax Officer, Neemuch” 6. A perusal of the assessment order would reveal that the Assessing Officer has not made any addition of Rs.11,00,000/-. The total income determined by the Assessing Officer is Rs. 4,41,300/-. The issue in dispute is squarely covered by the judgment

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

section 263 against the reassessment order dated 03.03.2016, on the issue of loan transactions found recorded in the seized material but were not considered and added by the Ld. AO while passing the reassessment order. The Ld. Pr. CIT then pass a revision order u/s 263 on 15.03.2017 by holding that the order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 147

RNG CONSTRUCTION CO,MANDIDEEP vs. ADDL.,JT.,DY.,ASSTT.ITO, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

u/s 147 was invalid and not maintainable, as it was based on a 'change of opinion' without any fresh or new material. The Tribunal relied on the decision in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "143(3)", "43B", "36(1)(va)", "40(b)", "139", "140b", "37(4)", "114", "153" ], "issues": "Whether reassessment

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

Appeal is allowed

Section 263 of the Act without appreciating that the reassessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.\"\nThe background facts leading to present appeal are as under:\n(i)\nThe assessee filed original return of AY 2015-16 on 31.03.2016 u/s 139 declaring a total income of Rs.24,96,000/- which was assessed.\nSantosh Rathore

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

reassessment proceedings. The AO after considering reply as well as documentary evidences was satisfied and again accepted the return income while passing order u/s 147 r.w. section

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

u/s 143(2), the same is applicable to assessments completed under Act,\nirrespective of the fact under which section assessment is to be completed as\nlegislature has provided for issuance of such notice before completion of assessment\nunder whatever section it may be. CIT v. Salarpur Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [2014] 50\ntaxmann.com 105 (All)\n\"10. Section 292BB

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

section 147 was illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice dated 30.03.2019 issued u/s 148 for assessment year 2012-13 by the ld. AO was illegal, bad in law & without jurisdiction since there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary

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

section 147 was illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice dated 30.03.2019 issued u/s 148 for assessment year 2012-13 by the ld. AO was illegal, bad in law & without jurisdiction since there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

section 147 was illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice dated 30.03.2019 issued u/s 148 for assessment year 2012-13 by the ld. AO was illegal, bad in law & without jurisdiction since there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary

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

section 147 was illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice dated 30.03.2019 issued u/s 148 for assessment year 2012-13 by the ld. AO was illegal, bad in law & without jurisdiction since there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

section 147 was illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice dated 30.03.2019 issued u/s 148 for assessment year 2012-13 by the ld. AO was illegal, bad in law & without jurisdiction since there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary

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

section 147 was illegal, void and without jurisdiction. 1.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice dated 30.03.2019 issued u/s 148 for assessment year 2012-13 by the ld. AO was illegal, bad in law & without jurisdiction since there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary