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.

148 of the Act, compliance of the procedure laid down under Sections 142 and 143 (2) is mandatory. On the admitted fact that beyond notice under Section 142(1), there was no notice issued under Section 143(2), and in the light of the fact that the very basis of the reassessment

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.

148 of the Act, compliance of the procedure laid down under Sections 142 and 143 (2) is mandatory. On the admitted fact that beyond notice under Section 142(1), there was no notice issued under Section 143(2), and in the light of the fact that the very basis of the reassessment

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.

148 of the Act, compliance of the procedure laid down under Sections 142 and 143 (2) is mandatory. On the admitted fact that beyond notice under Section 142(1), there was no notice issued under Section 143(2), and in the light of the fact that the very basis of the reassessment

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.

148 of the Act, compliance of the procedure laid down under Sections 142 and 143 (2) is mandatory. On the admitted fact that beyond notice under Section 142(1), there was no notice issued under Section 143(2), and in the light of the fact that the very basis of the reassessment

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

reassessment dated 21/3/2016, thus, had no tax impact inasmuch as the tax payable was only consequent to the deemed total income u/s. 115-JB. No penalty, even as explained in CIT v. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 543 (Del), is leviable u/s. 271(1)(c) under such circumstances. Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the said decision has been

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

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:

section 148 was passed in the name of the Sunil kumar pathak legal heir of late Ram Karan Pathak. Further CIT(A) has also passed appeal order in the name of SUNIL PATHAK ONLY and not in the name of SUNIL PATHAK legal Heir of the of late Ram Karan Pathak. 5.WITH OUT GROUND TO to 4 NUMBER 1 further

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

reassessment proceedings, so that the reason does not hold, cannot be accepted. The reason, read holistically, speaks of non-compliance of the statutory provisions of section 80IB(13) read with s. 80IA(7); it noting a failure to comply with the said provisions. When the reason, as recorded, adverts to these provisions, the same have to be necessarily read into

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

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

148, 142(1), or 144 was served at his correct residential address, and therefore, he was unaware of the reassessment proceedings. The order passed ex parte under section 144, without providing an effective opportunity of hearing, is violative of the principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside. 4. Reassessment is Without Proper Foundation - Absence of Tangible Material

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

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

148, 142(1), or 144 was served at his correct residential address, and therefore, he was unaware of the reassessment proceedings. The order passed ex parte under section 144, without providing an effective opportunity of hearing, is violative of the principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside. 4. Reassessment is Without Proper Foundation - Absence of Tangible Material

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

2. That pursuant to order passed u/s 263 of the Act; the first query letter u/s 142(1) issued on 29.04.2019 was duly replied as reproduced in the Asstt. order passed U/Ss 263 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. Ord. did. 16.10.2019. 3. That the assessee's Reply that letters u/s 142(1) dtd 05.09.2019 and 07.08.2019 based on original return

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

2. That pursuant to order passed u/s 263 of the Act; the first query letter u/s 142(1) issued on 29.04.2019 was duly replied as reproduced in the Asstt. order passed U/Ss 263 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. Ord. did. 16.10.2019. 3. That the assessee's Reply that letters u/s 142(1) dtd 05.09.2019 and 07.08.2019 based on original return

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,SAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

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

section 144B of the Act, dated 17/09/2021 for Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The background of facts of the case in brief are that the assessee, who had initially filed his return of income for the relevant year at Rs. 2,28,630, was subject to reassessment on account of failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts

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

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

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(3) of the Act dated 23.12.2010 (PB pgs. 45-47). Subsequently, notice u/s. 148(1) was issued on 29.7.2013, and its’ income reassessed at Rs.12

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: -

2. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law CIT (A) should have held that Ld. AO erred in reopening assessment us. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of third party information in mechanical way and hence reassessment proceeding was bad in law. The assessment order and CIT (A) order

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

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