DEVENDRA KUMAR DESHMUKH, DURG,DURG vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed in terms of our aforestated observations

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 378/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

reassessment proceedings void ab initio, and the learned PCIT erred in invoking his powers u/s 263 to revise an assessment order which is void ab initio. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or withdraw any ground(s) of appeal with due permission. Additional Grounds 1. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Raipur has grossly erred

SUDHA GUPTA,BILASPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 435/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

271F for not furnishing of ITR which is factually untrue since assessee had filed ITR u/s 139(1). 9. The appellant reserve the right to amend, modify or add any of the ground/s of appeal. 3 Sudha Gupta vs. ITO, Bilaspur 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel, representing the assessee submitted a request for adjournment as the necessary preparation

PAGADALA VELUGONDA REDDY, DURG,DURG vs. ACIT-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.726/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pagadala Velugonda Reddy Lig 284, Hudco, Bhilai-490 009 (C.G.) Pan: Abmpv7318K

section 147 to 151 of the Act. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Jt. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Chennai has erred in upholding addition of entire amount of cash deposit of Rs.19,20,000/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. The impugned order