SUNIL KUMAR JAIN,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, DAMOH

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

reassessment proceeding was initiated by the Id AO solely on the basis of valuation report of Id DVO hence in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of ACIT v Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 328 ITR 515, the Id CIT (A) ought to have held that the reopening of the assessment

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:

reassessment proceedings though the reasseement notice issue by the Assessing officer is defective and further the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the assessing is sustaining the addition overlooking the voluminous material evidences filed in the assessment and appellate proceedings. On the first issue of validity of issue of notice U/sec148 of the Act, we find the Assessing

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

assessment. The same is accordingly upheld, and the assessee gets part relief. I decide accordingly. ITA No. 152 -153/Jab/2013 & 06/Jab/2018 Anushree Engineering v. ITO 5.1 The second appeal, i.e., against the reassessment (ITA No. 153/Jab/2013), raises a single issue, being the disallowance of commission expenditure, claimed at Rs. 1,82,656, and supposedly paid to one, Kirti Trading

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

assessment. The same is accordingly upheld, and the assessee gets part relief. I decide accordingly. ITA No. 152 -153/Jab/2013 & 06/Jab/2018 Anushree Engineering v. ITO 5.1 The second appeal, i.e., against the reassessment (ITA No. 153/Jab/2013), raises a single issue, being the disallowance of commission expenditure, claimed at Rs. 1,82,656, and supposedly paid to one, Kirti Trading

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

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

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.

reopen the assessment were not supplied to the assessee, despite being requested by the assessee. This is gross violation of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). Thus, the Hon'ble CIT is not justified in confirming the order

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.

reopen the assessment were not supplied to the assessee, despite being requested by the assessee. This is gross violation of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). Thus, the Hon'ble CIT is not justified in confirming the order

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.

reopen the assessment were not supplied to the assessee, despite being requested by the assessee. This is gross violation of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). Thus, the Hon'ble CIT is not justified in confirming the order

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.

reopen the assessment were not supplied to the assessee, despite being requested by the assessee. This is gross violation of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). Thus, the Hon'ble CIT is not justified in confirming the order

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

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

reassessment proceedings that they had not sold any land during the relevant year. This was confirmed by the AO, and the assessment concluded accepting the returned income. Subsequent notice/s u/s. 263 was issued on 29/12/2021 on the ground that no enquiry toward the source of investment in land (being at rs. 54.30 lacs, including stamp duty) had been made

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

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

reassessment proceedings that they had not sold any land during the relevant year. This was confirmed by the AO, and the assessment concluded accepting the returned income. Subsequent notice/s u/s. 263 was issued on 29/12/2021 on the ground that no enquiry toward the source of investment in land (being at rs. 54.30 lacs, including stamp duty) had been made

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

reopening the assessee’s assessment for the relevant year was the assessee stating per its’ return of income of it being not liable to get its’ account audited u/s. 44AB of the Act. This was understood by the Assessing Officer (AO) as a non-conduct of the audit there-under and, inexplicably, audit

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

reopen the assessment. So, however, the sum admittedly includes Rs. 262.57 lacs, being the provision for overdue interest. The same is not admissible either u/s. 36(1)(viia) or u/s. 37(1). The assessee claims the same to be a part of the debt due, justifying provisioning in its respect as toward bad and doubtful debts and, in any case

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

reopen the assessment. So, however, the sum admittedly includes Rs. 262.57 lacs, being the provision for overdue interest. The same is not admissible either u/s. 36(1)(viia) or u/s. 37(1). The assessee claims the same to be a part of the debt due, justifying provisioning in its respect as toward bad and doubtful debts and, in any case

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

reopen the assessment. So, however, the sum admittedly includes Rs. 262.57 lacs, being the provision for overdue interest. The same is not admissible either u/s. 36(1)(viia) or u/s. 37(1). The assessee claims the same to be a part of the debt due, justifying provisioning in its respect as toward bad and doubtful debts and, in any case

SAURABH SINGHAI L/H LATE SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3 SAGAR, SAGAR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

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

reopened to examine the very issue of non-deduction of tax. The contention of the assessee for non-fulfillment of provisions of section 194C(7), as there was no prescribed form, is ambiguous for the fact if the statutory provisions of the Act mandates submission of requisite form before the prescribed authority, then non-submission of the same would deprive

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: -

reopening assessment us. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of third party information in mechanical way and hence reassessment