M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD.,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

153B. Thus, it is submitted that the period of limitation in this case is as provided by second proviso to section 153(4) and the assessment orders passed in the case of the assessee are not time barred. 6.13 On going through the aforesaid provisions and the relevant judicial analysis in our opinion this ground of appeal deserves

SHRIMATI SHARDA KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL (I), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

153B. Thus, it is submitted that the period of limitation in this case is as provided by second proviso to section 153(4) and the assessment orders passed in the case of the assessee are not time barred. 6.13 On going through the aforesaid provisions and the relevant judicial analysis in our opinion this ground of appeal deserves

M/S NISHANT FINANCE PVT.LTD,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL (I), INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

153B. Thus, it is submitted that the period of limitation in this case is as provided by second proviso to section 153(4) and the assessment orders passed in the case of the assessee are not time barred. 6.13 On going through the aforesaid provisions and the relevant judicial analysis in our opinion this ground of appeal deserves

SUMATI KUMAR KASLIWAL,INDORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

153B. Thus, it is submitted that the period of limitation in this case is as provided by second proviso to section 153(4) and the assessment orders passed in the case of the assessee are not time barred. 6.13 On going through the aforesaid provisions and the relevant judicial analysis in our opinion this ground of appeal deserves

DYPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S PUMARTH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. , INDORE

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

153B. Thus, it is submitted that the period of limitation in this case is as provided by second proviso to section 153(4) and the assessment orders passed in the case of the assessee are not time barred. 6.13 On going through the aforesaid provisions and the relevant judicial analysis in our opinion this ground of appeal deserves

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

153B, 153Cand 153D of the Act, the aforesaid time limitation shall not apply to such cases. • It is also proposed that for the purposes of computing the period of limitation for issue of section 148 notice, the time or extended time allowed to the assessee in providing opportunity of being heard or period during 23 Smt. Nilima Kothari which

M/S SHRI GURMUKHDAS CONTRACTORS P LTD,BHOPAL vs. DCIT-CENRRAL-1, BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.] [Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessment or reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to be passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the [Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] under sub-section (12) of section 144BA