TARUN DEVCON PRIVATE LIMITED,JABALPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JABALPUR

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

income declared in the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition

KALYANIKA INFRA MEGA VENTURES PVT. LTD,JABALPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , JABALPUR

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

income declared in the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition

SHRI TARACHAND KHATRI,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR

In the result, Ground No.1

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Arora

addition of Rs.2.50 crores. Ground Nos. 1 and2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6. On Ground No.3, assessee challenged the approval granted by JCIT under section 153D without application of mind. 6.1. The approval under section 153D of the Act is filed at page-96 of the PB which reads as under : “GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY

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

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

M/S ANUSHREE ENGINEERING,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JABALPUR

In the result, subject to the caveat stated at para 3

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

reassessment was initiated, and income assessed vide order u/s. 143(3) read with s. 147 dated 17/12/2009, enhancing the income for the year to Rs. 6.85 lacs. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) were also initiated in respect of income additionally

M/S.ANUSHRI ENGINEERING,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, subject to the caveat stated at para 3

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

reassessment was initiated, and income assessed vide order u/s. 143(3) read with s. 147 dated 17/12/2009, enhancing the income for the year to Rs. 6.85 lacs. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) were also initiated in respect of income additionally

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

M/S BINDRA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1),

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2008-09 Bindra Warehousing Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-1(1), Corporation, Itarsi

additions has been made, for the reasons for recorded by the assessing officer dated 04/05/2010. Hence the consequential assessment is ab-initio void, and deserves to be set aside. 4. That, the assessment of the appellant was reopened on non-existing and irrelevant reasons hence the reopening u/s. 147/148 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment order dated

VARSMA ENGINEERS GROUP,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2008-09 Varhsma Engineer’S Group, Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Vijay Nagar, Circle – 1(1), Jabalpur (M.P.) Jabalpur (M.P.) [Pan: Aaefv 7885Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. H.S. Modh Adv. Respondent By Smt. Swati Agarwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 22/10/2021

reassessment proceedings as being based thereon and, thus, as not valid in law. As held by the ld. CIT(A), a deed not stamped or notarized (authenticated), is not a proper instrument of partnership. 4. I have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 Both the parties have, in my view, travelled outside the purview

SMT. ASHA YADAV,SAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Asha Yadav V. Principal C.I.T.-1 Katra Ward, Bina Jabalpur Sagar Tan/Pan:Abzpu9749E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Mishra, Advocate Respondent By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 04 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Dated 26/3/2018 Passed By The Ld. Pr. C.I.T., Jabalpur U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, Taking The Following Grounds: 1. That, The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit-1, Jabalpur U/S 263 Dated 26.03.2018 Is Arbitrary, Erroneous & Contrary To The Facts & Records Of The Assessment, Hence Liable To Be Set Aside. 2. That, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Conclusion Of Pr. Cit-1, Jabalpur Regarding Contravention Of Provision U/S 40 A (3) Of The Act Is Erroneous. 3. That, On The Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, The Conclusion Of Pr. Cit-1, Jabalpur Regarding Applicability Of Section 194 C Of The Act Is Illegal, Arbitrary & Erroneous. 4. That, The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Served To The Assessee On 09.04.2018, Hence The Order Is Clearly Barred By Limitation. 5. That, While Passing The Order U/S 263 No Reasonable & Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard Is Provided To The Assessee.

addition in assessment or reassessment proceedings u/s. 148 only to the issues in respect of which the reasons were recorded for formation of belief of escapement of income

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

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

M/S GEOMIN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JABALPUR vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 1, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2014-15 (Through Virtual Hearing)

Income Tax Act. 1961 (in short "the Act'.) 2. Shri Dhiraj Ghai, ld. Representative of the assessee submitted that the Pr. CIT in the guise of exercising his power u/s. 263 of the Act found that the Assessing Officer has not conducted any enquiry with regard to unsecured loan disclosed in the balance sheet. Referring to the query raised

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- SEONI, SEONI vs. JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, SEONI

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

additional issue for AY 2009-10. The assessee challenges the re-assessment proceedings for this year on the ground of invalidity of the reasons recorded, which, as stated by Shri Ganguly, do not lead to any reason to believe escapement of income chargeable to tax to any person properly instructed on facts and in law. As observed by the Bench

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- SEONI, SEONI vs. JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, SEONI

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

additional issue for AY 2009-10. The assessee challenges the re-assessment proceedings for this year on the ground of invalidity of the reasons recorded, which, as stated by Shri Ganguly, do not lead to any reason to believe escapement of income chargeable to tax to any person properly instructed on facts and in law. As observed by the Bench

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- SEONI, SEONI vs. JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYADIT, SEONI

In the result, all the Appeals and CO (# 7/2018) are allowed for statistical purposes, and CO (# 5/2018) is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

additional issue for AY 2009-10. The assessee challenges the re-assessment proceedings for this year on the ground of invalidity of the reasons recorded, which, as stated by Shri Ganguly, do not lead to any reason to believe escapement of income chargeable to tax to any person properly instructed on facts and in law. As observed by the Bench