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

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

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

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

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

M/S RACHANA CONSTRUCTIONS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital gain income is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 5. The Assessee craves leave to, add to alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and / or rescind any of the ground/grounds of the appeal on or before the final hearing of the appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure

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

search and seizure proceeding. It cannot be a case of the assessee that by making additional expenditure on construction outside the book, he is not going to recover the same from the purchasers of the flats. It is beyond the concept of preponderance and human probabilities that a businessman has ventured into a commercial venture only to make loos

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

search and seizure proceeding. It cannot be a case of the assessee that by making additional expenditure on construction outside the book, he is not going to recover the same from the purchasers of the flats. It is beyond the concept of preponderance and human probabilities that a businessman has ventured into a commercial venture only to make loos

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

search and seizure proceeding. It cannot be a case of the assessee that by making additional expenditure on construction outside the book, he is not going to recover the same from the purchasers of the flats. It is beyond the concept of preponderance and human probabilities that a businessman has ventured into a commercial venture only to make loos