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)

u/s 151 obtained by AO from inappropriate authority. For this purpose, Ld. AR carried us to section 147 which is the primary section empowering the AO to make assessment or reassessment

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

Appeal is allowed

151 of the Act. Thus, proceedings u/s.263 of the Act cannot be initiated in respect of unlawful reassessment proceedings and thus, the revision proceedings are liable to be set aside.\n5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT has erred in exercising the provisions of 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 148, section 149, section

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

147 r.w.section 144B of the Act dated 24.05.2023 treating the LTCG claimed by the assessee as bogus and made addition u/s 68 of the Act at Rs.24,46,824/-. The AO also made an addition for unexplained expenditure u/s 69C at Rs. 1,22,341/-. Income assessed at Rs.30,11,605/-. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before

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

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

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

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

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

M/S JAYGANGA EXIM INDIA (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-II, BHOPAL

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Jayganga Exim India Pvt. Dy. Cit, Limited Central-Ii, [Formerly Known As ‘Jay Jyoti Bhopal (India) Pvt. Ltd.’] बनाम/ 26, Col. Biswas Road, Ground Floor, Vs. West Side Flat, Kolkata (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Aaacj 8822 E Assessee By Shri Harsh Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2024

151 of Income-tax Act, 1961, and following the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (I) Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 19( S.C.). (ii) That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of ld. AO in passing the impugned reassessment order

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

u/s 147 to 151 of the Act. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not quashing the assessment order despite non fulfillment of jurisdictional conditions of section 143(2) read with decision of Delhi High Court. 3.That in any case

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

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

147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 151 and Section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132-A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish

PARAMETRIC TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S.Parametric Trading A.C.I.T., Pvt.Ltd., Circle 4(1), 205, Sujata Chambers, 2Nd Indore. Floor, Abhichand Gandhi Vs. Marg,Off Katha Bazar Masjid (W), Mumbai (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aagca4207J Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta & Shri Shailesh Parmar, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2023

reassessment order passed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act. The issue raised in this ground is purely legal in nature and goes to the root of the matter, therefore, we first take up ground no.2 for hearing and disposal. 4. The ld. Authorized Representative has submitted that the original assessment order was passed u/s

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

reassessment. Further, it is mandatory that the opinion should be that of the assessing officer for forming belief whereas in the instant case, the Assessing Officer has relied upon the information received from the DCIT-Central for which he himself was not sure on the question of authenticity. Learned Counsel for the assessee also submitted that in the reasons recorded

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

reassessment. Further, it is mandatory that the opinion should be that of the assessing officer for forming belief whereas in the instant case, the Assessing Officer has relied upon the information received from the DCIT-Central for which he himself was not sure on the question of authenticity. Learned Counsel for the assessee also submitted that in the reasons recorded

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

reassessment. Further, it is mandatory that the opinion should be that of the assessing officer for forming belief whereas in the instant case, the Assessing Officer has relied upon the information received from the DCIT-Central for which he himself was not sure on the question of authenticity. Learned Counsel for the assessee also submitted that in the reasons recorded

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

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

reassessment. Further, it is mandatory that the opinion should be that of the assessing officer for forming belief whereas in the instant case, the Assessing Officer has relied upon the information received from the DCIT-Central for which he himself was not sure on the question of authenticity. Learned Counsel for the assessee also submitted that in the reasons recorded