LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

147 of the Act. This is for the reason that, by issuing notice under section 263, the issues which were not subject matter of re-assessment proceedings, were sought to be revised and hence, the limitation period would run from intimation order passed under section 143(1) of the Act. The learned Counsel, in support of these arguments, placed reliance

JAGDISHPRASAD MAHESHWARI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.748/Nag/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jagdishprasad Maheshwari Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-4, C/O Surgical India, Nagpur Shop No. 214,215,224,225, Sandesh Dawa Bazar, Near Haj House, Ganjipeth, Nagpur-440018, Maharashtra Pan: Acypm9289M Appellant Respondent

TDS and further on verification of scrutiny assessment record, assessee has claimed expenses of purchase of gold jewellery worth Rs.51,400/- and also the assessee had given money to the associations for conducting of conference. All these three issues have been referred in the reasons recorded for reopening. There is no other reference of any independent material gathered

VIKRAM AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4 (4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

147 read with section 148, on basis of report from Investigation wing of department. Therefore, where assessing Officer had been supplied with information by Investigation wing and he applied his mind to such information, there was no infirmity or illegality in issuance of notice under section 148. 6.2.4 In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-7 vs. Paramount

VIKRAM AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

147 read with section 148, on basis of report from Investigation wing of department. Therefore, where assessing Officer had been supplied with information by Investigation wing and he applied his mind to such information, there was no infirmity or illegality in issuance of notice under section 148. 6.2.4 In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-7 vs. Paramount

VIKRAM AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

147 read with section 148, on basis of report from Investigation wing of department. Therefore, where assessing Officer had been supplied with information by Investigation wing and he applied his mind to such information, there was no infirmity or illegality in issuance of notice under section 148. 6.2.4 In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-7 vs. Paramount

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

147 r/w section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequent to a search which was conducted in RBSSN Group on 24th September 2010, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 153A of the Act on 12th September 2011, in response to which the assessee filed its return of income on 7th May 2012. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer found from the audited

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

147 r/w section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequent to a search which was conducted in RBSSN Group on 24th September 2010, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 153A of the Act on 12th September 2011, in response to which the assessee filed its return of income on 7th May 2012. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer found from the audited

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

147 r/w section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequent to a search which was conducted in RBSSN Group on 24th September 2010, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 153A of the Act on 12th September 2011, in response to which the assessee filed its return of income on 7th May 2012. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer found from the audited

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

147 r/w section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequent to a search which was conducted in RBSSN Group on 24th September 2010, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 153A of the Act on 12th September 2011, in response to which the assessee filed its return of income on 7th May 2012. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer found from the audited

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

147 r/w section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequent to a search which was conducted in RBSSN Group on 24th September 2010, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 153A of the Act on 12th September 2011, in response to which the assessee filed its return of income on 7th May 2012. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer found from the audited

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

147 r/w section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequent to a search which was conducted in RBSSN Group on 24th September 2010, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 153A of the Act on 12th September 2011, in response to which the assessee filed its return of income on 7th May 2012. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer found from the audited

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. R.B.S.D. AND F.N. DAS (EXPORT FIRM), VIZIANAGARAM

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

147 of the Act by making addition of 1,04,27,361, on account of disallowance towards payments to 6 different labour contractors under section 69C of the Act. 5. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition with following observations:- "4. Discussion and Decision:- Ground no.3, is regarding addition of ₹ 1,04,27,361, u/s 69C being unexplained

VIJAY VINOD DURAGKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

section 148 of the Act, on the basis of information allegedly received by him from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi. AO has not applied his mind so as to come to an independent conclusion that he has reason to believe that income has escaped during the year. 1.4 Fishing enquiry-Information from intelligence wing: Giriraj Enterprises

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

147 of the Act on 25/12/2018. Facts of the case: Assessee filed return of income under section 139(1) of I T Act on 17/10/2016 declaring income of Rs.4,60,44,360/–. Case was selected for scrutiny and various notices were issued which were duly replied by the assessee. Assessment order under section 143(3) was passed on 25/12/2018 wherein

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. R.B.S.D. AND F.N. DAS (EXPORT FIRM), VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

147 of the Act on 29/03/2023, determining total assessed income at ` 6,28,80,335, by making addition of ` 1,25,89,787, under section 69C r/w section 115BBE of the Act treating it as bogus expenses on account of payment to labour contractors. 5. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition with following observations:– “4. Discussion

M/S INDOWORTH INDIA LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), CIRCLE 51(1) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

147 of the Act on 12/6/2019 accepting the return filed by the NRI Smt. Davuluri Sai Swapna. Since the non-resident has discharged her obligation with respect to payment of capital gains tax, the assessee cannot be taxed once again for non-deduction of TDS U/s. 195 of the Act. It is also observed that the seller Smt. Davuluri

INDOWORTH INDIA LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), CIRCLE 51(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

147 of the Act on 12/6/2019 accepting the return filed by the NRI Smt. Davuluri Sai Swapna. Since the non-resident has discharged her obligation with respect to payment of capital gains tax, the assessee cannot be taxed once again for non-deduction of TDS U/s. 195 of the Act. It is also observed that the seller Smt. Davuluri

DCIT-CC-1(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. R.B.S.D. AND F.N. DAS(EXPORT FIRM), VIZIANAGRAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

147 read with section 143(3) of I T Act on 28.03.2023 The argument of the appellant carries weight and I am in agreement with the same. It is undisputed that the appellant has incurred expenses of Rs. 15,89,204/- for repairs and the building which are quite old. From the details of expenses furnished by the appellant