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 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. Addition

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:

31-05-2018 in the F.Y 2013-14. Hence the assessing officer after recording the reasons for reopening and further has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec 148 of the Act. Whereas it was brought to the knowledge that, the assessee Shri Ram Karan Pathak has expired on 18.02.2015 and in response

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

147 r/w s. 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