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

RAHUL BAJPAI,IDGAH CHOWK vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), SHRI RAM PLAZA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.348/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rahul Bajpai Idgah Chowk, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh-495 001 Pan: Aexpb4410L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under thus section or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereinafter in the section 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant

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)

147 without issuing notice u/s 143(2) is bad in law and is a nullity. TITLE CITATION AUTHORITY Following S. Page No. N0. of the CLC The Hon'ble ITAT, 1. Shri Dev Narayan ITA No. 32/ 121 - Raipur Sahu vs. ITO RPR/2018 dated 132 of Bench 29.04.2022 LPB-3 Gulab Badgujar (2019) 179 ITD Hon'ble ITAT

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

42 Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur escapement of income from assessment must also be occasioned by the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, fully and truly. This is a necessary condition for overcoming the bar set up by the proviso to section 147. If this condition is not satisfied

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

section 54B of the Act. 4. As the aforesaid issue of claiming exemption u/s 54B was not properly examined during the course of assessment proceedings in the light of ISRO report (copy enclosed), the order passed in this case appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue.” 42. Apart from that

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

section 54B of the Act. 4. As the aforesaid issue of claiming exemption u/s 54B was not properly examined during the course of assessment proceedings in the light of ISRO report (copy enclosed), the order passed in this case appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue.” 42. Apart from that

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

section 54B of the Act. 4. As the aforesaid issue of claiming exemption u/s 54B was not properly examined during the course of assessment proceedings in the light of ISRO report (copy enclosed), the order passed in this case appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue.” 42. Apart from that

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

section 54B of the Act. 4. As the aforesaid issue of claiming exemption u/s 54B was not properly examined during the course of assessment proceedings in the light of ISRO report (copy enclosed), the order passed in this case appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue.” 42. Apart from that

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

section 54B of the Act. 4. As the aforesaid issue of claiming exemption u/s 54B was not properly examined during the course of assessment proceedings in the light of ISRO report (copy enclosed), the order passed in this case appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue.” 42. Apart from that

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

section 54B of the Act. 4. As the aforesaid issue of claiming exemption u/s 54B was not properly examined during the course of assessment proceedings in the light of ISRO report (copy enclosed), the order passed in this case appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue.” 42. Apart from that

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

section 54B of the Act. 4. As the aforesaid issue of claiming exemption u/s 54B was not properly examined during the course of assessment proceedings in the light of ISRO report (copy enclosed), the order passed in this case appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue.” 42. Apart from that

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

C.G. BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.300/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 C.G Buildcon Private Limited B-1, 3Rd Floor, C.G. Elite, Opp. Mandi Gate, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri (C.G.)-492 004 Pan: Aaccc5355P

reassessment proceedings as the original assessment u/s 143(3), dated 09.12.2011 was framed by the ACIT-Circle1(2), Raipur; and (iv). that the lower authorities had, based on misconceived facts, declined the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 10. As the assessee company has assailed the validity of the jurisdiction assumed

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

u/s. 147 of the Act. 12.2 Also, the Ld. DR rebutted the claim of the assessee’s counsel that the observation of the Hon’ble Justice M.B Shah (retd.) Commission could not be taken as a material for initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. However, the Ld. DR failed to come forth with any contention as regards the observation

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

u/s. 147 of the Act. 12.2 Also, the Ld. DR rebutted the claim of the assessee’s counsel that the observation of the Hon’ble Justice M.B Shah (retd.) Commission could not be taken as a material for initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. However, the Ld. DR failed to come forth with any contention as regards the observation

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

u/s. 147 of the Act. 12.2 Also, the Ld. DR rebutted the claim of the assessee’s counsel that the observation of the Hon’ble Justice M.B Shah (retd.) Commission could not be taken as a material for initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. However, the Ld. DR failed to come forth with any contention as regards the observation

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