ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

132 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment orders under Section 153A were also passed simultaneously by the same Assessing Officer. It is surprising to note that no addition was made in the hands of Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

132 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment orders under Section 153A were also passed simultaneously by the same Assessing Officer. It is surprising to note that no addition was made in the hands of Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER , NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

132 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment orders under Section 153A were also passed simultaneously by the same Assessing Officer. It is surprising to note that no addition was made in the hands of Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

132 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment orders under Section 153A were also passed simultaneously by the same Assessing Officer. It is surprising to note that no addition was made in the hands of Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023

SHETKARI SOLVENT (INDIA) LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT C.C. 1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.137/Nag/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007–08 Shetkari Solvent (India) Ltd., Ug–7&8, Jagat Chambers, Near Ambedkar Sqr, Central Avenue, Bagadganj, Nagpur–440008. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aabcs0105N बनाम / V/S. Acit, Central Circle–1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. Assessee By : Shri Abhay Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri U. U. Kasar, Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Nagpur Dated 11.01.2012 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Revised Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :– “1. That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.5,79,60,000 On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases Of Soya Doc

4. There was a search and seizure operations under section 132 of the act carried out at the residence and business premises of the Rana- Maven group. The assessment in Assessee's case was done under section 153C of the Act. The Assessee submits that the documents impounded during the search were purchase bills of specified parties (recorded in books

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

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

132(4). The assessee had no opportunity to cross-examine the said witness, but that apart, the mandatory procedure under section 153C has not been followed; On this count alone, we conclude that the alleged additions made in assessments made under section 153A for unabated years i.e., A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 on the date of search

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

132(4). The assessee had no opportunity to cross-examine the said witness, but that apart, the mandatory procedure under section 153C has not been followed; On this count alone, we conclude that the alleged additions made in assessments made under section 153A for unabated years i.e., A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 on the date of search

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

132(4). The assessee had no opportunity to cross-examine the said witness, but that apart, the mandatory procedure under section 153C has not been followed; On this count alone, we conclude that the alleged additions made in assessments made under section 153A for unabated years i.e., A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 on the date of search

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

132(4). The assessee had no opportunity to cross-examine the said witness, but that apart, the mandatory procedure under section 153C has not been followed; On this count alone, we conclude that the alleged additions made in assessments made under section 153A for unabated years i.e., A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 on the date of search

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

132(4). The assessee had no opportunity to cross-examine the said witness, but that apart, the mandatory procedure under section 153C has not been followed; On this count alone, we conclude that the alleged additions made in assessments made under section 153A for unabated years i.e., A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 on the date of search

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

132(4). The assessee had no opportunity to cross-examine the said witness, but that apart, the mandatory procedure under section 153C has not been followed; On this count alone, we conclude that the alleged additions made in assessments made under section 153A for unabated years i.e., A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 on the date of search

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

Section 22 of the Income Tax Act on the property which is other than the self occupied property. I find that the assessee owns two residential properties. During the course of assessment, the AO held that the residential property at Saibaba Temple Road, Hospet is a self occupied property of the assessee on the basis of the Wealth Tax return

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

Section 22 of the Income Tax Act on the property which is other than the self occupied property. I find that the assessee owns two residential properties. During the course of assessment, the AO held that the residential property at Saibaba Temple Road, Hospet is a self occupied property of the assessee on the basis of the Wealth Tax return

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

Section 22 of the Income Tax Act on the property which is other than the self occupied property. I find that the assessee owns two residential properties. During the course of assessment, the AO held that the residential property at Saibaba Temple Road, Hospet is a self occupied property of the assessee on the basis of the Wealth Tax return

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

Section 22 of the Income Tax Act on the property which is other than the self occupied property. I find that the assessee owns two residential properties. During the course of assessment, the AO held that the residential property at Saibaba Temple Road, Hospet is a self occupied property of the assessee on the basis of the Wealth Tax return

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

Section 22 of the Income Tax Act on the property which is other than the self occupied property. I find that the assessee owns two residential properties. During the course of assessment, the AO held that the residential property at Saibaba Temple Road, Hospet is a self occupied property of the assessee on the basis of the Wealth Tax return

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

Section 22 of the Income Tax Act on the property which is other than the self occupied property. I find that the assessee owns two residential properties. During the course of assessment, the AO held that the residential property at Saibaba Temple Road, Hospet is a self occupied property of the assessee on the basis of the Wealth Tax return

ITO, WARD- 1)1), NAGPUR vs. AXYKNO ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

132(4) of the Act on 01/10/2013, during the search proceedings carried out by the Director of Income Tax (Inv), Income Tax Department, Mumbai. It is the further case of the Department that Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, conceded in the statement that he provided hawala entries to the interested persons in the garb of share application money and purchase bills