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.

143 (2) is mandatory and not procedural. If the notice is not served within the prescribed period, the assessment order is invalid Reassessment-----Notice-----Assessee intimating original return be treated as fresh return---Reassessment proceedings completed despite assessee filing affidavit denying serviced of notice under section

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.

143 (2) is mandatory and not procedural. If the notice is not served within the prescribed period, the assessment order is invalid Reassessment-----Notice-----Assessee intimating original return be treated as fresh return---Reassessment proceedings completed despite assessee filing affidavit denying serviced of notice under section

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.

143 (2) is mandatory and not procedural. If the notice is not served within the prescribed period, the assessment order is invalid Reassessment-----Notice-----Assessee intimating original return be treated as fresh return---Reassessment proceedings completed despite assessee filing affidavit denying serviced of notice under section

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.

143 (2) is mandatory and not procedural. If the notice is not served within the prescribed period, the assessment order is invalid Reassessment-----Notice-----Assessee intimating original return be treated as fresh return---Reassessment proceedings completed despite assessee filing affidavit denying serviced of notice under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. MADHYA PRADESH POWER GENERATING CO. LTD., JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

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

143(3) dated 21.3.2016. The same was further modified u/s.154 (on 11.01.2017) to bring on record the income under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) regime at Rs. 817.29 lacs, which income had remained unchanged. The said reassessment and modification were not challenged in appeal', attaining finality. 2.2 In the penalty proceedings, initiated on 21.3.2016, the assessee's explanation (dated

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.

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

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.

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

SHRI NITIN SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

2), declaring so, with, accordingly, the assessee pleading that the said limit could not be breached without the AO, being bound by the Board Instruction, first seeking permission as contemplated by the Board Instruction, and which he has not. We have in fact already noted a complete absence of the basic incidents of a section 153A(1) r/w s. 153C

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

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09 vide order dated 06.12.2010. 2. The appeal raises two grounds, as under: 1. That the learned first appellate authority has erred in arbitrarily conforming the addition of Rs. 8,43,219/- made by the learned assessing authority by ,1 Bindra Warehousing Corporation

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

section 143(3) and u/s. 143(3) 1 ITA No. 152 -153/Jab/2013 & 06/Jab/2018 Anushree Engineering v. ITO read s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) and that dated 13/11/2017 confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. 2.1 The facts of the case

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

section 143(3) and u/s. 143(3) 1 ITA No. 152 -153/Jab/2013 & 06/Jab/2018 Anushree Engineering v. ITO read s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) and that dated 13/11/2017 confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. 2.1 The facts of the 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

143(2), on the basis of which jurisdiction stood assumed, was issued in the name of the amalgamating company, no longer in existence, so that there was no valid of assumption of jurisdiction. Reference in this context, also made during hearing, be made to para 33 (pg. 637) of the Judgment, which reads as under: “33. In the present case

SMT. LALITA BAI KHANDELWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2007-08 Smt. Lalita Bai Khandelwal V. Income Tax Officer Mangalwara Chouraha Ward 1 Babai, Hoshangabad

section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal, invalid and untenable in law being contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act rendering the entire assessment as illegal and bad in law and the learned CIT(A) erred both in law and facts in confirming the impugned assessment order. 2. Considering the fact that Shri

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09 vide order dated 16/06/2014. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a partnership firm in contract business, was assessed at a total income of Rs.6,19,810 for the relevant year vide assessment u/s. 143

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR vs. M/S.TDP & ASSOCIATES, JABALPUR

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s CO are dismissed

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

section 143(3) of the 1 | P a g e C.O.No. 01/JAB/2022 TDP & Associates Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 28/12/2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The appeal, initially dismissed by the Tribunal on 23/08/2019 on account of low tax-effect, was later recalled vide order u/s. 254(2) dated 27/04/2022 for being heard on merits

SHAKUNTALA SINGHVI,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

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

section 143(3) of the Act dated 11/12/2019 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The sole issue leading to the revision of the assessee‟s reassessment

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

reassessment shall be passed by the assessing officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153A or assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 153B except with the prior approval of Joint Commissioner.” Therefore, for passing the impugned

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

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

section 147 r/w s. 143(3), dated 1 | P a g e ITA Nos. 28 & 29/JAB/2022 (AY: 2012-13) Kadeer Khan & Anr. v. Pr. CIT 22/08/2019, for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jabalpur („Pr.CIT‟) vide his separate orders of even date, i.e., 25/01/2022. 2. The brief facts of the case are that