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 and liable to be quashed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362. 7. The next objection of the assessee is against the validity of the order passed

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

u/s 147 r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 24.05.2023. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “01) Issue: Opportunity of being heard : That the Commissioner of Income tax (A) erred in law while concluding that despite opportunities were granted to the appellant, she did not pursue the appeal. He ought to have considered that there

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

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

2 & 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

ACIT(CENTRAL)-1,, INDORE vs. SHRI RAJUL BHARGAVA, INDORE

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

2 & 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

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)

reassessment.” Thus, the section 292BB has a limited application, it operates in only one of the three situations mentioned in (a), (b) or (c) which are basically situations of ir-regularity in “service” of notice. In present case of assessee, the AO has issued notice u/s 148 without having a valid approval u/s 151(1) which is Page

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)

reassessment.” Thus, the section 292BB has a limited application, it operates in only one of the three situations mentioned in (a), (b) or (c) which are basically situations of ir-regularity in “service” of notice. In present case of assessee, the AO has issued notice u/s 148 without having a valid approval u/s 151(1) which is Page

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

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2005-06 by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 17.2.2012 after recording reasons on 1.2.2012 and obtaining satisfaction of the JCIT, Sagar Range, Sagar. In response to the ITO vs. Sandeep Kumar Dubey notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee furnished return of income before

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

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 but were not considered and added by the Ld. AO while passing the reassessment order. The Ld. Pr. CIT then

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

u/s. 148. 14. Before us, the appellant company has made a written submission in the form of a Synopsis. The relevant portion of the appellant’s reply is being reproduced as under: “SUBMISSION[for Ground No. 2(a) & 2(c)] In this context, it is submitted as under: 1.00 FURNISHING OF ORIGINAL RETURNS OF INCOME BY THE APPELLANT

M/S SHIVALIKA REALITIES P LTD,INDORE vs. ITO 5(1) , INDORE

In the result of appeals of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and AY 2009-10 vide ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10

u/s. 148. 14. Before us, the appellant company has made a written submission in the form of a Synopsis. The relevant portion of the appellant’s reply is being reproduced as under: “SUBMISSION[for Ground No. 2(a) & 2(c)] In this context, it is submitted as under: 1.00 FURNISHING OF ORIGINAL RETURNS OF INCOME BY THE APPELLANT

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

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 orders interalia for the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s Page 2 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370 to 374 & C.O No.6 & 7 80IB(11A) which was challenged by the assessee before CIT(A). The CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 80IB (11A) on merits however

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 orders interalia for the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s Page 2 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370 to 374 & C.O No.6 & 7 80IB(11A) which was challenged by the assessee before CIT(A). The CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 80IB (11A) on merits however

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 orders interalia for the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s Page 2 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370 to 374 & C.O No.6 & 7 80IB(11A) which was challenged by the assessee before CIT(A). The CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 80IB (11A) on merits however

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 orders interalia for the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s Page 2 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370 to 374 & C.O No.6 & 7 80IB(11A) which was challenged by the assessee before CIT(A). The CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 80IB (11A) on merits however

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 orders interalia for the Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s Page 2 of 57 Prataap Snacks Limited ITA Nos.370 to 374 & C.O No.6 & 7 80IB(11A) which was challenged by the assessee before CIT(A). The CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 80IB (11A) on merits however

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 148, section 149, section

ABHISHEK DHANOTIA,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 3(1), INDORE

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

2. Provisions of section 153C read - “Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied……..” Section 153C starts with a non obstante clause that is ‘Notwithstanding’. This non obstante clause has an overriding effect on the provisions of the other sections mentioned after this word. Thus

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

2 to sub-section (3) of section 80-IA shall apply for the purposes of clause (ii) of this sub-section as they apply for the purposes of clause (ii) of that sub-section. Page 8 of 48 MAPAEX Remedies Pvt Ltd., Bhopal ITA Nos. 486, 444, 489/Ind/2024 & 508 to 510 for AYs 2012-13, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Explanation