SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

reassessment framed pursuance to notice u/s 148 at para 2 & 3 that sum of Rs.3,23,670/- was not claimed as interest expenses in profit and loss A/c and therefore there was no case for making any disallowance. A.O. further proceeded to assess the same income as determined in regular assessment framed

SHRI DIGPAL JAISWAL,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1 , KATNI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

reassessment framed pursuance to notice u/s 148 at para 2 & 3 that sum of Rs.3,23,670/- was not claimed as interest expenses in profit and loss A/c and therefore there was no case for making any disallowance. A.O. further proceeded to assess the same income as determined in regular assessment framed

CHHAYA MASURKAR,BALAGHAT vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTER JURISDICTION OFFICER- ITO, BALAGHAT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrachhaya Masurkar V. National Faceless 1 Ward No.9 Ram Mandir Road, Assessment Centre Katangi, Madhya Pradesh- Jurisdiction Officer-Ito, 481445. Balaghat Delhi. Tan/Pan:Cakpm8662A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) O R D E R (1). The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 13.02.2024 Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred As To “Cit(A)”)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

reassessment proceeding was bad in law. The assessment order and CIT (A) order is bad in law for other reasons too. 3. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the assessee was not required to file the return of income as her income was below taxable limit. 4. On facts and in circumstances of the case

SUNIL KUMAR PATHAK,REWA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, , REWA

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunil Kumar Pathak Vs. Ito, Ward – 1, 3Rd Floor, A Block, Shilpi Rewa-486001, Plaza, Pili Kothi, Madhya Pradesh. Rewa-486001, Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Arwpp9628A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Dhiraj Ghai.Fca.Ar Respondentby : Shri.Shiv Kumar. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 144 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

addition of unexplained investment Sunil Kumar Pathak, Jabalpur. of the purchase of residential property and assessed the total income of Rs 2,50,10,000/- and passed the order u/sec 144 of the Act dated 03.12.2018. 4. Aggrieved by the assesseement order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee has challenged the validity of reassessment

DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT (A), SAGAR

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

Reassessment is Without Proper Foundation - Absence of Tangible Material The reopening of the assessment under section 147 is purely based on AIR-reported bank deposits without any independent verification or tangible evidence. This amounts to a borrowed satisfaction, which has been consistently held by judicial forums (including Harmeet Singh vs. ITO) as invalid and unsustainable in law. 5. Addition

DINESH JAT,SAGAR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

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

Reassessment is Without Proper Foundation - Absence of Tangible Material The reopening of the assessment under section 147 is purely based on AIR-reported bank deposits without any independent verification or tangible evidence. This amounts to a borrowed satisfaction, which has been consistently held by judicial forums (including Harmeet Singh vs. ITO) as invalid and unsustainable in law. 5. Addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C 2(1) , JABALPUR vs. SHRI RAKESH JAISHWAL , JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Circle 2(1), Vs. Shrirakeshjaiswal, Annexe Building, Bunglow No. 6, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Napier Town, Jabalpur-482001, Jabalpur-482001, Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Aefpj7779E Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri.Sanjay Seth Ca & Shri.Sachin Vajpayee, Adv.Ar Revenue By : Shri.Rajesh Kumar Gupta. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1,Jabalpur Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Income Tax (Appeals)-1,Jabalpur passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 and 250 of the Act. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in Law and on facts in deleting the addition Rs. 1,10,58,722/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69B on account of difference between investment in firm

VISHWANATH SINGH RATHODE,HOSHANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1,, ITARSI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Vishwanath Singh Rathode V. Income Tax Officer-1 Village Chapda Grahan, Income Tax Officer-1, Seonimalwa, Seonimalwa, Niyas Coloni Itarsi, Dist Madhya Pradesh-461221. Narmadapuram, Mp- 461111. Pan:Aezpr6401F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09 01 2025 O R D E R

reassessment which is not justified and bad in law. 5. The assesse reserves the right to append, alter or delete any ground (S) of appeal upto the time of hearing of appeal.” Page 2 of 4 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are in this case the case was taken up for scrutiny on the basis that