SHAKUNTALA SINGHVI,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟ hereinafter) dated 21/03/2022, in respect of the assessee‟s assessment u/s. 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act dated 11/12/2019 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The sole issue leading to the revision of the assessee‟s reassessment, proceedings for which were initiated in view of the discrepancies

SUDEEP PANDYA L/H LLA JAYESH PANDEYA,CHHINDWARA vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesudeep Pandya L/H, Vs. Pr.Cit, Smt.Ila Jayesh Centralrevenuebuilding, Pandya, Napier Town, 14-15 Patni Jabalpur-482002, Complex, Madhya Pradesh. Parasiya Road, Chhindwara-480001 Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Ahkpp7408G Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri G.N Purohit.Sr.Adv & Smt.Uma Parashar. Adv.Ar Respondent By : Shri Saad Kidwai.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Jabalpur Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Sudeep Pandya L/H Ila Jayesh Pandya Jabalpur. 1 The Learned Pcit Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Passing An Order Under Section 263 Against A Dead Person, The Notice Of Hearing Where Issued In The Name Of Deceased & Were Not Served On The Legal Here The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Illegal Without Jurisdiction & Void Ab-Intio Same Should Be Placed Into Toto.

capital gains on sale of shares is not chargeable to income tax, therefore on facts also the order made under section 263 is illegal as no error has been committed by the AO that may be prejudicial to the interest of revenue the order under section 263 should be annulled. 3 That no notice under section 263 was issued

RENU ANANDANI,JABALPUR vs. NFAC, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

2 Renu Anandani A.Y. 2012-13 property but only net short term capital gain of Rs. 3,69,039/- had been shown in the return of income filed for the year under consideration. At the time of passing of the assessment order, the ld. AO had not added the full amount of short term capital gain on the sale

SMT. VANDANA SARAOGI,KATNI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL) BHOPAL AT JABA, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.2016-17 Smt Vandana Saraogi Vs. Principal Commissioner Prop. Mahalaxmi Industries, Ghantaghar, Of Income Tax (Central) Hanumanganj Ward, Katni-483222. Bhopal At Jabalpur Director General Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, 48, Arera Hills, Bhopal-462011. Pan: Asips2301L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit(Central), Bhopal At Jabalpur U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, For Short) Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 153A Read With Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 22.04.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:-

2 below section 263(1) of the Act. He, therefore, partially set aside the composite assessment order to that extent and asked the AO to re-frame the assessment on this issue after conducting proper inquiries in the light of his discussions/directions and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4 A.Y. 2016-17 Smt Vandana Saraogi

NARESH KUMAR GOLCHHA OFFICER ,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX WARD.1 , KATNI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Naresh Kumar Golchha, Vs Ito, C/O-Samapat Lal & Sons, Ward-1, Raghunath Ganj, Katnia, Katni (M.P) Madhya Pradesh-483501. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Afhpg3398F Assessee By Shri H.S.Modh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

capital gain as per provisions of Section 48 read with section 50C of the Income tax Act and therefore the above order is erroneous, In so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue in terms of sub Section (1) of Section 263 of the Income tax Act. 1961. 2

SHRI VISHAL SETHI,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JABALPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2014-15

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 27.02.2019 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jabalpur (‘Pr. CIT’ for short) qua his assessment u/s. 143(3) for assessment year 2014-15 vide order dated 6.10.2016. 2. At the outset, it was observed by the Bench that the instant appeal is time barred by limitation

SMT. RASHMI PAHARIYA,JABALPUR vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

2 to sub-section (1) of s. 263, set aside the impugned assessment, observing as under:- “7. It is clear that the Assessing Officer has not verified or examined the applicability of provisions of section 50C of the Act in this case, particularly so, when the case was reopened for the reason that capital gain

RITA MANCHHANI ,JABALPUR vs. PR. CIT-1 JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‘s appeal is dismissed on the afore-said terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‘Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

263 dated 30/3/2022 in the case of SM (PB pgs. 128 - 138), the co-owner, reads as under: ‗7. After perusal of the all the reply and relevant documents available on record, it is found that the submission of the assessee on the issue of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) as the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), JABALPUR vs. SMT. SHEELA RANI JAIN, JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue‟s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟ hereinafter), dated 27/02/2015, for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 2. The appeal raises a single issue, i.e., whether the agricultural land sold by the assessee on 30/03/2009, i.e., during the relevant year, is a capital asset under the Act or not, on the sale of which therefore „capital gains

AMAR SINGH CHAUDHARY,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan&Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2009-10

section 153C r/w s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 27.03.2015 for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 2. The brief background facts of the case are that during the course of a search u/s.132(1) of the Act on Mokha Group of cases on 14.12.2011, an agreement for sale of land dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (3), JABALPUR vs. SHRI VINOD KUMAR CHATE, JABALPUR

section 50C. In fact, the land had been awarded to the assessee’s father (MC) in 1961 by the State Government, even as the title deed was executed only in 1987. The date of acquisition by him and, thus, the assessee (s. 49), is prior to 1981, so that it is the fair market value (fmv) as on 1.4.1981 that

SHRI VINOD KUMAR CHATE,JABALPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

section 50C. In fact, the land had been awarded to the assessee’s father (MC) in 1961 by the State Government, even as the title deed was executed only in 1987. The date of acquisition by him and, thus, the assessee (s. 49), is prior to 1981, so that it is the fair market value (fmv) as on 1.4.1981 that

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

section to the representative of the postal department, which, as Sh. Mishra indicated, may not be readily available after several years. We think that the assessee, where he intends to press home an „advantage‟ of such nature, ought to have taken steps in time, under RTI Act, seeking specific information in the matter, which the Revenue, a public office

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

section to the representative of the postal department, which, as Sh. Mishra indicated, may not be readily available after several years. We think that the assessee, where he intends to press home an „advantage‟ of such nature, ought to have taken steps in time, under RTI Act, seeking specific information in the matter, which the Revenue, a public office

SMT. ANURADHA UPADHYAY,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

section to the representative of the postal department, which, as Sh. Mishra indicated, may not be readily available after several years. We think that the assessee, where he intends to press home an „advantage‟ of such nature, ought to have taken steps in time, under RTI Act, seeking specific information in the matter, which the Revenue, a public office

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

section to the representative of the postal department, which, as Sh. Mishra indicated, may not be readily available after several years. We think that the assessee, where he intends to press home an „advantage‟ of such nature, ought to have taken steps in time, under RTI Act, seeking specific information in the matter, which the Revenue, a public office

AMBIKA CHARAN DIXIT,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 263 are not satisfied. The order made is without jurisdiction should be quashed. 2. That, The learned PCIT has failed to record specific finding based on case specific facts that the order made u/s 143(3) by AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order should be annulled. I.T.A. No.37/Jab/2022 Assessment Year:2015-16 2

KADEER KHAN,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟ hereinafter) in respect of their assessments under section 147 r/w s. 143(3), dated 1 | P a g e ITA Nos. 28 & 29/JAB/2022 (AY: 2012-13) Kadeer Khan & Anr. v. Pr. CIT 22/08/2019, for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jabalpur („Pr.CIT‟) vide

SHABANA KHAN,JABALPUR vs. PR-1, JABALPUR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟ hereinafter) in respect of their assessments under section 147 r/w s. 143(3), dated 1 | P a g e ITA Nos. 28 & 29/JAB/2022 (AY: 2012-13) Kadeer Khan & Anr. v. Pr. CIT 22/08/2019, for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jabalpur („Pr.CIT‟) vide