GOMESH DWIVEDI,PADRA vs. ITO-REWA, DISTRICT REWA (MP), REWA

In the result, ITA Nos. 15 & 16/JAB/2024 are held to be allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.15 & 16/Jab/2024 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Gomesh Dwivedi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.3, Durga Nagar Padra Huzur Rewa, M.P. Rewa, M.P. Pan:Akcpd5536A (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain shown in the original return of income could not be accepted. He, therefore, added back a sum of Rs. 88,76,961/- on this account. 5. Aggrieved with the said addition, the assessee went in appeal to the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the assessee only enjoyed a 1.42% interest

JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

27-03-2000 without examining the return, it was invalid. The notice was invalid and so was the assessment.” 5.3 DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 (Chennai)] Validity of reassessment order - Non-service of notice under s.143(2) – “The amended Proviso to s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was not applicable in case where

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR vs. SHRI MANISH KUMAR SARAOGI, KATNI

Accordingly, the appeals in I.T.A.No.39/JAB/2023, 21/JAB/2019 and 62/JAB/2019 of the Revenue are dismissed for having become in-fructuous

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

27-03-2000 without examining the return, it was invalid. The notice was invalid and so was the assessment.” 12.3 DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 (Chennai)] Validity of reassessment order - Non-service of notice under s.143(2) – “The amended Proviso to s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was not applicable in case where

JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

27-03-2000 without examining the return, it was invalid. The notice was invalid and so was the assessment.” 5.3 DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 (Chennai)] Validity of reassessment order - Non-service of notice under s.143(2) – “The amended Proviso to s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was not applicable in case where

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IN- SITU), CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR, JABALPUR vs. MANISH KUMAR SAROGI, KATNI

Accordingly, the appeals in I.T.A.No.39/JAB/2023, 21/JAB/2019 and 62/JAB/2019 of the Revenue are dismissed for having become in-fructuous

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

27-03-2000 without examining the return, it was invalid. The notice was invalid and so was the assessment.” 12.3 DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 (Chennai)] Validity of reassessment order - Non-service of notice under s.143(2) – “The amended Proviso to s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was not applicable in case where

JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

27-03-2000 without examining the return, it was invalid. The notice was invalid and so was the assessment.” 5.3 DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 (Chennai)] Validity of reassessment order - Non-service of notice under s.143(2) – “The amended Proviso to s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was not applicable in case where

JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

27-03-2000 without examining the return, it was invalid. The notice was invalid and so was the assessment.” 5.3 DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 (Chennai)] Validity of reassessment order - Non-service of notice under s.143(2) – “The amended Proviso to s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was not applicable in case where

RJKUMAR VALECHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GHANSHYAM DAS VALECHA,JABALPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1), JABAPUR

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2012-13 Rajkumar Valecha L/H Of Late V. Dcit Circle-2(1) Shri Ghanshyam Das Valecha Annexue Building Napier S-736/1-4 Mahavir Complex, Town-482001. Russal Chowk-482001. Pan:Abjpv5609E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri G. N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate Respondent By: Shri Rahul Padha, Jc-2 Date Of Hearing: 11 02 2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 02 2026 O R D E R

27 02 2026 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, filed by the assessee, against the order dated 30.09.2024 of learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred as to “Ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals

RAI SAHAB BHAIYALAL DUBEY EDUCATIONAL AND MEDICAL CHARITABLE TRUST,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

27 of this reply. 1.2 Assessee is a charitable institution and is registered under section 12A vide order dated 22.07.1999 and accordingly has claimed exemption under section 11 of the Income Tax Act. Copy of registration certificate under section is enclosed as page no 28 of this reply. In lieu of above said registration assessee trust has rightly claimed