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

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.

4 income, however, in case during the search no incriminating material is found, in case of completed/unabated assessment, the only remedy available to the Revenue would be to initiate the reassessment proceedings under sections 147/48 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in sections 147/148, as in such a situation, the Revenue cannot be left with

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.

4 income, however, in case during the search no incriminating material is found, in case of completed/unabated assessment, the only remedy available to the Revenue would be to initiate the reassessment proceedings under sections 147/48 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in sections 147/148, as in such a situation, the Revenue cannot be left with

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

5) and sub-sections (7) to (12) of section 80-IA shall, so far as may be, apply to the eligible business under this section. 4.2 Qua the first limb of the reason recorded, when the assessee states in its’ return of income – a duly verified document, that it is not liable to get its’ accounts audited u/s. 44AB

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

4) stands inserted (again) on the statute, excluding cooperative banks, and which are not claimed as retrospective! There was no reference to the Memorandum Explaining the Provisions of the relevant Finance Bill; Budget Speech, etc. explaining the amendment, which would throw light thereon, by Sh. Ganguly. There was, further, no explanation by him as to why the said amendment

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

4) stands inserted (again) on the statute, excluding cooperative banks, and which are not claimed as retrospective! There was no reference to the Memorandum Explaining the Provisions of the relevant Finance Bill; Budget Speech, etc. explaining the amendment, which would throw light thereon, by Sh. Ganguly. There was, further, no explanation by him as to why the said amendment

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

4) stands inserted (again) on the statute, excluding cooperative banks, and which are not claimed as retrospective! There was no reference to the Memorandum Explaining the Provisions of the relevant Finance Bill; Budget Speech, etc. explaining the amendment, which would throw light thereon, by Sh. Ganguly. There was, further, no explanation by him as to why the said amendment

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

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

4. 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

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

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

4. 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

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

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.

4. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the assessment order and sought for dismissal of the C.O. 5. We have heard the parties perused the material. 6. The Tribunal in Assessee’s own case I.T.(SS)A. Nos.15 to 20/JAB/2019 (Naresh Poddar) Assessment Years:2010-11 to 2015-16 and in I.T.(SS)A. Nos.8 to 13/JAB/2019 (Manish Sarogi

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.

4. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the assessment order and sought for dismissal of the C.O. 5. We have heard the parties perused the material. 6. The Tribunal in Assessee’s own case I.T.(SS)A. Nos.15 to 20/JAB/2019 (Naresh Poddar) Assessment Years:2010-11 to 2015-16 and in I.T.(SS)A. Nos.8 to 13/JAB/2019 (Manish Sarogi

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

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.

4. We have heard the learned A.R. and carefully perused the materials available on record. It is imperative from the record that the assessee has not been issued with the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The said fact of non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been admitted by learned

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.

4. We have heard the learned A.R. and carefully perused the materials available on record. It is imperative from the record that the assessee has not been issued with the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The said fact of non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been admitted by learned

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.

4. We have heard the learned A.R. and carefully perused the materials available on record. It is imperative from the record that the assessee has not been issued with the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The said fact of non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been admitted by learned

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.

4. We have heard the learned A.R. and carefully perused the materials available on record. It is imperative from the record that the assessee has not been issued with the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The said fact of non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been admitted by learned

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

reassessment proceedings, for the benefit of the 5 | P a g e Nitin Sharma v. Pr. CIT Revenue. Suffice to state that we find the assessment proceedings to have been validly initiated, and the absence of jurisdictional fact for proceeding u/s. 153A(1) r/w s. 153C. The finality of concluded proceedings cannot be lightly, if at all, disturbed