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

section 263 of the Act deserves to be quashed. The assessee has also filed a gist of submissions which are reproduced below:– “1. Enquiry made by the learned AO 6 Latitude Infraventures ITA no.349 & 350/Nag./2024 A.Y. 2016–17 & 2017–18 1.1 During assessment proceedings pursuant to reopening of assessment u/s 148/147, the learned AO had issued show cause notice

MUJIB SALMANBHAI PATHAN,,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.98/Nag/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 ......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Mujib Salmanbhai Pathan, House No.242, Ward No.2, Old Area, Wardha Road, Butibori, Nagpur-441108. Pan : Aefpp0269M. बनाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……""यथ" / Respondent Circle-3, Nagpur. Assessee By : Shri Veena Agrawal Revenue By : Smt. Agnes P. Thomas. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 12.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Stating That The Subject, Whether Proper Approval Was Taken Before Converting Limited Scrutiny Into Complete Scrutiny Being Administrative Measure Cannot Be Taken Up. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs 1,00,85,013/- Made By The Ao As Income Under The Head Business & Profession Rightly Declared As Income Under The Head Capital Gains.

section 263 was not sustainable, and that, on facts, the income was required to be taxed under the head ‘Capital gains’ and not as ‘Income from business’. [Para 14]” 11. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it does not indicate that the purchase of land was made with the intention to re-sell. The Hon’ble Supreme

SHRI MAHESH DEVDUTTA GUPTA,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3),, NAGPUR

In the result, the addition so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

section 9 ITANo.143/Nag/2017 263, has also returned a finding that facilities provided are integral part of the house property being let out and such facilities are to be provided where the property is to be let out. Therefore, the facilities are incidental and ancillary to the predominate nature of transaction being letting out of the premises. In case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AKOLA, NAGPUR vs. RBSD AND FN DAS, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

263 and notice under section 143(2)) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 06/02/2023 and duly served. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was also issued on 08/03/2023. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed assessment on 30/03/2023 determining total assessed income at ` 8,54,08,000, after making following additions:– Sr. Income Assessed Addition made

SNNEHSHILP CONSTRUCTIONS,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(5), NAGPUR

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

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

TDS on gross contract receipts of ` 3,01,24,661, as against the gross receipts taken by the Assessing Officer at ` 1,49,75,822, and, therefore, vide order under section 263

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

263 of IT Act dated 23/02/2021held that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) on 17/10/2016 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the AO has not looked into genuineness of Consultancy Charges of Rs. 7.50 crores paid by the assessee. The PCIT, accordingly set aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) with a direction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S. FUELCO COAL INDIA LTD., NAGPUR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

TDS deducted on 3. 1,86,63,861 payment made to M/s Bothra Shipping Services Pvt Ltd. Disallowance of 15% of finance cost claimed in the P&L 4. account on account of loans and advances gives to 15,86,284 related parties. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order so passed by the Assessing Officer, carried

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON vs. RENUKA OIL INDUSTRIES, KHAMGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

section 35AD(4), not disputing the factum or quantum (except disallowance of construction expenses of Rs 1.90.70,349 discussed in succeeding paragraphs) of investment in construction of the warehouse by the appellant and its in principle eligibility for deduction u/s 35AD by the AO, etc, are the various other factors which substantiate the genuineness et the claim of the appellant

ASSTT. CIT, CIR- 7, NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEWQUEST CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

263. In the result, the grounds taken by the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the assessee is also treated as allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed." 27 ACIT, CIRCLE-7, NAGPUR VS M/s. Newquest Corporation Ltd. (Now known as Avantha Holdings Ltd) 7.9 Thus it is seen that the expenses incurred

CHANDRAKUMAR MADHUSUDANJI JAJODIA,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

1 to 9). In appellate order CIT(A) has not considered/given one single reason as to why submission of assessee are not being accepted. Dismissing of appeal is arbitrary. Ground No.3: Assessment framed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of I.T. Act 1961 without issue of notice u/s 143(2) is bad in law. CIT(A) Para 6 Page