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

27), i.e., as a limited scrutiny case through Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS). The same was only for verification of the sale consideration of the property sold by the assessee during the relevant year as it was below that reported in Annual Information Report (AIR). The ld. PCIT, however, has per the impugned order required the Assessing Officer

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‟ shall

MANNULAL JAGANNATH DAS TRUST HOSPITAL,JABALPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: S/Shri Nrs Ganesan & Sanjay Arora

gains of business, the condition that such income would not be liable to inclusion in its total income under the provisions of section 11 shall not apply in relation to such income, if— (a) the institution or fund maintains separate books of account in respect of such business; (b) the donations made to the institution or fund are not used

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

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

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

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

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

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 PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This