DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. M/S SUNIL SPONGE PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.73/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd. H. No.11, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aahcs7999A ……""यथ" / Respondent

u/s. 147 r.w.s 143(3), dated 28.03.2014, cannot be sustained for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction, thus, uphold the same. Thus, the Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 33 DCIT (Central Circle-1), Raipur Vs. M/s. Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd. 21. Although we have upheld the order

ANIL NACHRANI,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 47/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

reassessment notice, and the final order were also issued within the time limit prescribed under the Act. 12. From the above, it is obvious that the procedure under Section 143(2) is intended to ensure that an adverse order is passed against the assessee only after affording the assessee a proper opportunity. Therefore, the Question to be considered is whether

MARUTI CLEAN COAL AND POWER LTD.,RAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 55/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. Ward No.42, Building No.14, Civil Lines, Near Income Tax Colony, Chhattisgarh-492 001. Pan : Aadcm4810C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates. Revenue By :Shri P. K Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022

u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 27.03.2021. Before proceeding any further we deem it fit to cull out the “reasons to believe” which had formed the very basis for reopening of the assessee’s concluded assessment u/s.147 of the Act, as under: “Reasons recorded u/s.148(2) of the I.T Act for A.Y.2016-17 Name of the assessee : Maruti Clean coal & Power

SANKET JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

40. We find that the A.O had reopened the concluded assessment of the assessee u/s. 147 of the Act, for the reason, that as the subject land sold by him was in the two years immediately preceding the date of its sale not used for agricultural purpose, thus, he had raised a wrong claim of deduction u/s

SMT. PUSHPA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

40. We find that the A.O had reopened the concluded assessment of the assessee u/s. 147 of the Act, for the reason, that as the subject land sold by him was in the two years immediately preceding the date of its sale not used for agricultural purpose, thus, he had raised a wrong claim of deduction u/s

SMT. TILOTTAMA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

40. We find that the A.O had reopened the concluded assessment of the assessee u/s. 147 of the Act, for the reason, that as the subject land sold by him was in the two years immediately preceding the date of its sale not used for agricultural purpose, thus, he had raised a wrong claim of deduction u/s

SAMPAT LAL JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

40. We find that the A.O had reopened the concluded assessment of the assessee u/s. 147 of the Act, for the reason, that as the subject land sold by him was in the two years immediately preceding the date of its sale not used for agricultural purpose, thus, he had raised a wrong claim of deduction u/s

SANJOG JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

40. We find that the A.O had reopened the concluded assessment of the assessee u/s. 147 of the Act, for the reason, that as the subject land sold by him was in the two years immediately preceding the date of its sale not used for agricultural purpose, thus, he had raised a wrong claim of deduction u/s

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

40. We find that the A.O had reopened the concluded assessment of the assessee u/s. 147 of the Act, for the reason, that as the subject land sold by him was in the two years immediately preceding the date of its sale not used for agricultural purpose, thus, he had raised a wrong claim of deduction u/s

SANJOG JHABAK L/H OF LATE GAUTAM CHAND JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

40. We find that the A.O had reopened the concluded assessment of the assessee u/s. 147 of the Act, for the reason, that as the subject land sold by him was in the two years immediately preceding the date of its sale not used for agricultural purpose, thus, he had raised a wrong claim of deduction u/s

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

reassessment proceedings, having been Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari done with the same set of facts which were available during the regular assessment, is to be held to be a clear case of change of opinion. 2. Atul Ltd (2020) (SC)- SLP dismissed (2020) 119 taxmann.com 287 Atul Ltd (2020) (Guj HC) (2020) 119 taxmann.com 286 3. Dell

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

reassessment proceedings, having been Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari done with the same set of facts which were available during the regular assessment, is to be held to be a clear case of change of opinion. 2. Atul Ltd (2020) (SC)- SLP dismissed (2020) 119 taxmann.com 287 Atul Ltd (2020) (Guj HC) (2020) 119 taxmann.com 286 3. Dell

PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 158, 159 & 160/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18)

reassessment proceedings, having been Pradeep Kumar Agrawal vs ITO, Ward- Dhamtari done with the same set of facts which were available during the regular assessment, is to be held to be a clear case of change of opinion. 2. Atul Ltd (2020) (SC)- SLP dismissed (2020) 119 taxmann.com 287 Atul Ltd (2020) (Guj HC) (2020) 119 taxmann.com 286 3. Dell

LAKHICHAND SIDARA,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), BILASPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.180/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-2010) Lakhi Chand Sidara, Vs Ito-1(2), Bilaspur Main Road Torwa, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan No. : Adkps 8800 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

reassessment proceedings started against the assessee u/s 147 are bad in law and also that under provision of clause 2 of Section 50C the value adopted or assessed (or assessable) by the Stamp Valuation Authority under sub section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer, thus, should be referred to a valuation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR vs. BAGADIYA BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

Accordingly the appeals filed by the revenue for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are dismissed and the cross-objection/Additional cross-objections filed by the assessee for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are allowed ...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 223 & 224/Rpr/2019 Co Nos.27 & 28/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 75/Rpr/2020 Co No. 02/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent

reassessment order without obtaining valid sanction approval given by the Ld. Pr. CIT u/s. 151. 3.That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned re-assessment order inter-alia on the ground that the objections raised

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR vs. BAGADIYA BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

Accordingly the appeals filed by the revenue for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are dismissed and the cross-objection/Additional cross-objections filed by the assessee for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are allowed ...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 223 & 224/Rpr/2019 Co Nos.27 & 28/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 75/Rpr/2020 Co No. 02/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent

reassessment order without obtaining valid sanction approval given by the Ld. Pr. CIT u/s. 151. 3.That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned re-assessment order inter-alia on the ground that the objections raised

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), RAIPUR vs. BAGADIYA BROTHERS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

Accordingly the appeals filed by the revenue for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are dismissed and the cross-objection/Additional cross-objections filed by the assessee for A.Y.2010-11 & 2011-12 are allowed ...

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 223 & 224/Rpr/2019 Co Nos.27 & 28/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 75/Rpr/2020 Co No. 02/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bagadiya Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Bagadiya Mansion, Jawahar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aabcb8934G ……""यथ" / Respondent

reassessment order without obtaining valid sanction approval given by the Ld. Pr. CIT u/s. 151. 3.That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned re-assessment order inter-alia on the ground that the objections raised

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER -1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH(CG) vs. SHRI SHRI PARMANAND GUPTA, RAIGARH, RAIGARH(CG)

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 82/Rpr/2017 Co. No. 02/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Parmanand Gupta, Alochan Agrawal, L/H. Of Late Shri Parmanand Gupta, Prop. M/S. Balaji Handloom, 19/48, Palace Road, Raigarh (C.G.) Pan : Afdpg4961L ……""यथ" / Respondent

reassessment on the basis of a mere change of opinion. This, in view of the settled position of law is impermissible. No tangible material is shown on the basis of which the assessment is sought to be ITA No.1212/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. DCIT-10(2)(2) reopened. In the absence of tangible material, what

KAMLESH KUMAR KESHARWANI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

reassessment within the meaning of “Explanation-2(c)(i)” of Section 147 of the Act, and also the complete details of the income assessed vide order u/ss. 143(3)/144 of the Act, dated 31.03.2016 were provided in the “reasons to believe”, dated 05.02.2018, therefore, the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR being devoid and bereft of any merit