ITAT Nagpur Judgments — November 2022

KEWALRAM SAHADEV ROTKAR,NAGPUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSTIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

ITA 224/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2022AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merits and should have provided an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

ANURAG KEWALRAM ROTKAR,NAGPUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (1), NAGPUR

ITA 212/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2022AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merits and should have provided an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

KEWALRAM SAHADEV ROTKAR,NAGPUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSTIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

ITA 220/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2022AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merits and should have provided an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

KEWALRAM SAHADEV ROTKAR,NAGPUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSTIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

ITA 223/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2022AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merits and should have provided an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

ANURAG KEWALRAM ROTKAR,NAGPUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (1), NAGPUR

ITA 213/NAG/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2022AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merits and should have provided an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

KEWALRAM SAHADEV ROTKAR,NAGPUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSTIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

ITA 222/NAG/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2022AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merits and should have provided an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

KEWALRAM SAHADEV ROTKAR,NAGPUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSTIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

ITA 221/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2022AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merits and should have provided an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

ANURAG KEWALRAM ROTKAR,NAGPUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (1), NAGPUR

ITA 208/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2022AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merits and should have provided an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

M/S. REGENCY EQUIFIN PVT.LTD,NAGPUR vs DY.CIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), NAGPUR

ITA 250/NAG/2017[2007-2008]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2022AY 2007-2008Allowed

The Tribunal held that if no notices were properly served on the assessee, then no penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could be imposed or confirmed. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of proper service of notices.

M/S. REGENCY EQUIFIN PVT.LTD,NAGPUR vs DY.CIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), NAGPUR

ITA 246/NAG/2017[2003-2004]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2022AY 2003-2004Allowed

The Tribunal held that if no notices were properly served on the assessee, then no penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could be imposed or confirmed. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of proper service of notices.

M/S. REGENCY EQUIFIN PVT.LTD,NAGPUR vs DY.CIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), NAGPUR

ITA 247/NAG/2017[2004-2005]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2022AY 2004-2005Allowed

The Tribunal held that if no notices were properly served on the assessee, then no penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could be imposed or confirmed. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of proper service of notices.

KEWALRAM SAHADEV ROTKAR,NAGPUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSTIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

ITA 226/NAG/2022[2016-17]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2022AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merits and should have provided an opportunity for the assessee to present evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

M/S. REGENCY EQUIFIN PVT.LTD,NAGPUR vs DY.CIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), NAGPUR

ITA 251/NAG/2017[2008-2009]Status: Disposed1 Nov 2022AY 2008-2009Allowed

The Tribunal held that if no notices were properly served on the assessee, then no penalty under Section 271(1)(b) could be imposed or confirmed. The Revenue failed to provide evidence of proper service of notices.