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

Appeal is allowed

147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated\n28/03/2022 from which the present revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act\noriginated.\nIt is true that before us, assessee has challenged the order passed by the Id.\nPr. CIT u/s.263 of the Act, however, since the assessee has raised the issue\nof validity of reassessment order, we first answer the question

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

147 of the Act, notice under section\n148 of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee on 4.3.2010.\nAccordingly the due date for furnishing of the return of income was\n3.4.2010 i.e. within 30 days from the date of service of notice\nunder section 148 of the Act as already specified therein. The\nassessee furnished the return

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

reassessment u/s 147 will be invalid, if no notice u/s 143(2) was issued and will not be save even by section 292BB, even if the assessee participates in the proceedings. The Revenue can avail section 292BB only if notice u/s 143(2) was issued and not when admitted position is that no notice was issued as in the instant

LOKESH GHIYA,NAGDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, UJJAIN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanilokesh Ghiya Ito 27, Government Colony Nagda Ujjain Vs. M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aoipg2695D Assessee By Shri Amit Choudhary Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.04.2024

239 (SC) (v) V.B. Gadkari Vs. ITO (1985) 59 STC 362, 364 (M.P.) vi) Shankar Khadsari Sugar Mills Vs. CIT 193 ITR 669 (Kar.) 1992 ( 3. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has not filed any return of income u/s 139 of the Act nor in response to notice issued by the AO u/s