MOHANLAL KALAJII SUTHAR,NAGPUR vs. DY, CIT CIR.1, NAGPUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.22/Nag/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mohanlal Kalaji Suthar, The Dy.Cit, Circle-1, Vinayaka Metal Indus, Shop Vs. Nagpur. No.04, Sai Wadi Sankul, Midc T Point, Amravati Road, Wadi, Nagpur – 440023. Pan: Arrps 5022 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri G.J.Ninawe – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2023

89,875/- in issue. 3. We note that the assessee’s instant appeal hardly required us to deal the relevant facts at length. We make it clear that the CIT(A)’s order has been passed against the Assessing Officer’s section 143(3) r.w.s 147 assessment only disallowing the alleged bogus purchases

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

section 148. 6.2.4 In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-7 vs. Paramount Communication (P) Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi), it has been held that:- "Information regarding bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record' to initiate valid reassessment proceedings." 6.2.5 I have perused

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

section 148. 6.2.4 In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-7 vs. Paramount Communication (P) Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi), it has been held that:- "Information regarding bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record' to initiate valid reassessment proceedings." 6.2.5 I have perused

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

section 148. 6.2.4 In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-7 vs. Paramount Communication (P) Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi), it has been held that:- "Information regarding bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record' to initiate valid reassessment proceedings." 6.2.5 I have perused

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

89,09,181, on which interest amounting to ₹ 17,07,742, has been paid. The assessee received dividend amounting to ₹ 48,899, which was claimed exempt under section 10(34) of the Act and claimed expenditure at ₹ 15,75,789, in the return of income. The Assessing Officer has made disallowance under section 14A at ₹ 15,75,789, though

M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 1(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

section 153A of the Act by passing assessment order dated 21/03/2013, determining the total income at ` 52,76,37,930 by making following additions:– 3 M/s. Shree Agarwal Coal India Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.180/Nag./2016 1. Interest on FDR ` 38,57,643 2. Investment in land ` 75,000 3. Agricultural treated as business income ` 1,93,083 4. Deemed Dividend

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

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

89,807/-. 4 M/s. N. Kumar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year 2012–13 Notice U/s. 142(1) has also been issued to the assessee on 15/07/2016 alongwith reasons for re-opening of case. In response to notice the assessee has submitted the reply and raised objection for issuing of notice U/s. 148. The assessee encloses herewith copy of notice

AMARCHAND LAXMINARAYAN MANTRI,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). When demanded by the Assessing Officer, the assessee produced its books of account, bills & vouchers and the same were examined by the Assessing Officer on test check basis. On verification of Profit & Loss Account, it was noticed that the assessee had claimed brokerage and commission expenses to the tune

AMARCHAND LAXMINARAYAN MANTRI,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). When demanded by the Assessing Officer, the assessee produced its books of account, bills & vouchers and the same were examined by the Assessing Officer on test check basis. On verification of Profit & Loss Account, it was noticed that the assessee had claimed brokerage and commission expenses to the tune

DCIT CC 1(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. BRINDESH GOVERDHANDAS AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

bogus document which cannot be relied upon. Even the payment by cheques as mentioned in the alleged Agreement to Sell are not mentioned in the actual sale deed executed on 29.09.2017. It was also submitted that if the department is in possession of any corroborative document, then the same shouldbe supplied to the assessee before taking any adverse decision against

DAYAL COTSPIN LIMITED,AKOLA vs. ACIT, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

purchased online. The above two companies are camouflage of companies managed & controlled by Mr. Shirish Shah. All the funds were arranged by Mr. Shirish Shah. The companies allowed their bank accounts with user ID and password to Shirish Shah. By using the bank accounts of various companies including even public limited companies the funds were managed and accommodation entries were

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

89,56,255 (plus value of land at Dhaba Rs.50,42,320 and investment in Plants & Equipment Rs.14.04.783) in both original as well as revised (though invalid) ITR/Audit report, not making claim of depreciation alternatively allowable u/s 32 on the capital expenditure incurred by the appellant on construction of the Warehouse in accordance with section 35AD(4), not disputing

SHRI GO0VINDDAS GOVARDHANDAS DAGA,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

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

bogus claim of Rs. 175 lakhs u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Thus, taking into consideration all these cumulative factors, the Ld. AO has disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs. 175 lakhs u/s. 35(1) (ii) of the Act. 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by confirming the order passed