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

search on 11/07/2019 which has been accepted by the Revenue and thus, it cannot be added under section 68 on this count also. However, this vital fact has also not been cared by the Addl.CIT and granted approval without even reading the draft assessment order and without perusing the assessment records and facts of the assessee. ii) The Addl.CIT

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

search on 11/07/2019 which has been accepted by the Revenue and thus, it cannot be added under section 68 on this count also. However, this vital fact has also not been cared by the Addl.CIT and granted approval without even reading the draft assessment order and without perusing the assessment records and facts of the assessee. ii) The Addl.CIT

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

search on 11/07/2019 which has been accepted by the Revenue and thus, it cannot be added under section 68 on this count also. However, this vital fact has also not been cared by the Addl.CIT and granted approval without even reading the draft assessment order and without perusing the assessment records and facts of the assessee. ii) The Addl.CIT

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

search on 11/07/2019 which has been accepted by the Revenue and thus, it cannot be added under section 68 on this count also. However, this vital fact has also not been cared by the Addl.CIT and granted approval without even reading the draft assessment order and without perusing the assessment records and facts of the assessee. ii) The Addl.CIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. AAKAR HOTELS, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain,\nwithout considering the fact that the sale deed /assignment deed itself shows\ncomplete transfer of property and not a part of property moreover it is not at\nall applicable to the legal maxim \"nemodat quod non habet\", which literally\nmeans no one can give what they do not have, as relied on by Ld. CIT(A).\nSince

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

seizure action u/s 132 was carried out at residential and business premises of Mr. Shirish Chandrakant Shah on 13.04.2013. His statement u/s 132(4) was recorded. During the search the incriminating documents were found. It was revealed that there was a chain of transfer of funds by way of cash/RTGS/cheques through bank accounts of various listed companies to ultimate beneficiaries

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

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

searched premises, which is in possession of the AO, does not constitute „asset‟ as per fourth proviso to section 153A(1) which is sine qua non for issuing notice u/s153C for the „relevant AY‟; in absence of a valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s153C for the „relevant AY‟, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed.” Additional Ground

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

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

searched premises, which is in possession of the AO, does not constitute „asset‟ as per fourth proviso to section 153A(1) which is sine qua non for issuing notice u/s153C for the „relevant AY‟; in absence of a valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s153C for the „relevant AY‟, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed.” Additional Ground

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

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

searched premises, which is in possession of the AO, does not constitute „asset‟ as per fourth proviso to section 153A(1) which is sine qua non for issuing notice u/s153C for the „relevant AY‟; in absence of a valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s153C for the „relevant AY‟, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed.” Additional Ground

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

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

searched premises, which is in possession of the AO, does not constitute „asset‟ as per fourth proviso to section 153A(1) which is sine qua non for issuing notice u/s153C for the „relevant AY‟; in absence of a valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s153C for the „relevant AY‟, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed.” Additional Ground

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

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

searched premises, which is in possession of the AO, does not constitute „asset‟ as per fourth proviso to section 153A(1) which is sine qua non for issuing notice u/s153C for the „relevant AY‟; in absence of a valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s153C for the „relevant AY‟, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed.” Additional Ground

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

Seizure Manual, 2007, open to be addressed in appropriate proceedings.\" 7. In the facts of the present case and those which have come to be recorded by the Tribunal, we find that there arises no occasion for us to examine the said issue. The same be accordingly kept open to be addressed in appropriate proceedings.\" PCIT v. Anuj Bansal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. ATUL YAMSANWAR , NAGPUR

Seizure Manual, 2007, open to be addressed in appropriate\nproceedings.\"\n7. In the facts of the present case and those which have come to be\nrecorded by the Tribunal, we find that there arises no occasion for us to\nexamine the said issue. The same be accordingly kept open to be addressed\nin appropriate proceedings.\"\nPCIT v. Anuj Bansal

UMESH SADASHIV THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

Seizure Manual, 2007, open to be addressed in appropriate proceedings.\" 7. In the facts of the present case and those which have come to be recorded by the Tribunal, we find that there arises no occasion for us to examine the said issue. The same be accordingly kept open to be addressed in appropriate proceedings.\" PCIT v. Anuj Bansal

UMESH SADASHIV THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all\nthe appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Seizure Manual, 2007, open to be addressed in appropriate\nproceedings.\"\n7. In the facts of the present case and those which have come to be\nrecorded by the Tribunal, we find that there arises no occasion for us to\nexamine the said issue. The same be accordingly kept open to be addressed\nin appropriate proceedings.\"\nPCIT v. Anuj Bansal

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

search material. The\nrelevant observations made in this behalf by the Tribunal in the impugned\norder are extracted hereafter:\n\"17.1. However, in the present case, we have no hesitation in stating that\nthere is complete non-application of mind by the Id Addl.CIT before granting\nthe approval. Had there been application of mind, he would not have\napproved

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all\nthe appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Seizure Manual, 2007, open to be addressed in appropriate\nproceedings.\"\n7. In the facts of the present case and those which have come to be\nrecorded by the Tribunal, we find that there arises no occasion for us to\nexamine the said issue. The same be accordingly kept open to be addressed\nin appropriate proceedings.\"\nPCIT v. Anuj Bansal

YRCE EDUCATE PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

search\nmaterial. As mentioned earlier, there are infirmities in the figures of original\nROI as well as total assessed income and the Addl.CIT while giving his\napproval has not applied his mind to the figures mentioned by the AO.\nTherefore, approval given in the instant case by the Addl.CIT, in our opinion,\nis not valid in the eyes