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.

5 in respect of completed assessments in absence of any incriminating material. 32.1 As such, their Lordships concluded ; i) that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even

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

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

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 The reopening

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

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

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 The reopening

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

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

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.

1. That, on the facts and circumstances of case, the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s. 147/143(3) of the IT Act, is without jurisdiction as the "reasons to believe" to reopen the assessment were not supplied to the assessee, despite being requested by the assessee. This is gross violation of the principle laid down

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.

1. That, on the facts and circumstances of case, the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s. 147/143(3) of the IT Act, is without jurisdiction as the "reasons to believe" to reopen the assessment were not supplied to the assessee, despite being requested by the assessee. This is gross violation of the principle laid down

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.

1. That, on the facts and circumstances of case, the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s. 147/143(3) of the IT Act, is without jurisdiction as the "reasons to believe" to reopen the assessment were not supplied to the assessee, despite being requested by the assessee. This is gross violation of the principle laid down

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.

1. That, on the facts and circumstances of case, the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s. 147/143(3) of the IT Act, is without jurisdiction as the "reasons to believe" to reopen the assessment were not supplied to the assessee, despite being requested by the assessee. This is gross violation of the principle laid down

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

section in his reason/s recorded, it is not permissible for us to travel thereto. The reason is, thus, not a valid ground to 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

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

section in his reason/s recorded, it is not permissible for us to travel thereto. The reason is, thus, not a valid ground to 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

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

section in his reason/s recorded, it is not permissible for us to travel thereto. The reason is, thus, not a valid ground to 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

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.

reassessment was the failure on the part of the assessee in not disclosing the capital gains arising on the transfer of property for assessment and that admittedly the assessee had requested the officer to accept the original return as a return filed in response to Section 148 of the Act, we hold that there was total failure on the part

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.

reassessment was the failure on the part of the assessee in not disclosing the capital gains arising on the transfer of property for assessment and that admittedly the assessee had requested the officer to accept the original return as a return filed in response to Section 148 of the Act, we hold that there was total failure on the part

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

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

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

reassessment, proceedings for which were initiated in view of the discrepancies that came to the notice of the Assessing Officer (AO) in the assessee‟s share trading transactions, found to be in order in assessment, was the claim for exemption u/s. 54EC of the 1 | P a g e Shakuntala Singhvi vs. Pr. CIT Act at Rs. 100 lacs