ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

2 raised by the Revenue.” Finally the Tribunal concluded as under: “Conclusion: Incentive received by the assessee-company by way of excise duty exemption on setting up a new unit in the notified area of Sikkim is a capital receipt not chargeable to tax and therefore, it cannot be regarded as income even for the purpose of book profit under

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. VINODKUMAR RAJENDRALAL KOCHHAR, KAMPTEE

In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed

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

Gains and Income from other sources & he had been regularly filing his return of income for the last 5 decades. (iii) During the captioned assessment year, the appellant had opted for computation of income U/s. 44AD in respect of his business activity and while filing online return of Income u/s. 139(1) for AY 2016-17, PART A-BS- Balance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. SUFLAM INFRA PROJECT LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

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

b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; ITA NO.97/NAG/2019 & ITA NO. 46/NAG/2021 & CO NO.6/NAG/2023 Sufalam Infra Projects Ltd vrs Pr.CIT (Central) (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with

SUFALAM INFRA PROJECTS LTD ,NAGPUR vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL ), NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

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

b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; ITA NO.97/NAG/2019 & ITA NO. 46/NAG/2021 & CO NO.6/NAG/2023 Sufalam Infra Projects Ltd vrs Pr.CIT (Central) (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with

ABDULLABHAI HASANALI THROUGH L/H ZOHRABAI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-3,, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

2) The issue of determination of loss or verification of loss was not before the AO. Thus the AO has not committed any error. On the pretext of revision proceedings, the learned CIT is revising the loss claim in Asstt. Year 2004-05 which is legally not permissible. (3) On the day when the assessment order for A.Y.2005-06 was passed

SHRI. ABDULLABHAI HASANALI,,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,-II, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

2) The issue of determination of loss or verification of loss was not before the AO. Thus the AO has not committed any error. On the pretext of revision proceedings, the learned CIT is revising the loss claim in Asstt. Year 2004-05 which is legally not permissible. (3) On the day when the assessment order for A.Y.2005-06 was passed

ABDULLABHAI HASANALI THROUGH L/H ZOHRABAI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-3,, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

2) The issue of determination of loss or verification of loss was not before the AO. Thus the AO has not committed any error. On the pretext of revision proceedings, the learned CIT is revising the loss claim in Asstt. Year 2004-05 which is legally not permissible. (3) On the day when the assessment order for A.Y.2005-06 was passed

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following 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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following 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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following 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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following 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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

b) That for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 which comes under „relevant AY / AYs“ as per Explanation-1 to sec153A(1) and Addl.CIT has not cared that documents / material i.e., ledger accounts found in searched premises (i.e., Suresh Agrawal, Kolkata) has been transferred to the Assessing Officer of the assessee-Company on 21/01/2021 by way of consolidated

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

119 of the Act. Para-9 of Chapter-3 of Volume-II (Technical) of the Manual reads as under: - “9. Approval for assessment: An assessment order under Chapter XIV-B can be passed only with the previous approval of the range JCIT/ADDL.CIT (For the period from 30-6-1995 to 31-12-1996 the approving authority

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

2 additions made by the AO. The first addition was made qua\ncash deposited in the bank, amounting to Rs.15,04,35,000. The second\naddition was made with regard to cash introduced via an entry operator i.e.,\none, Mr Vipin Garg. The amount added qua this aspect was pegged at\nRs.1,54,07,100.\n11. Despite these additions, which

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

2 additions made by the AO. The first addition was made qua\ncash deposited in the bank, amounting to Rs.15,04,35,000. The second\naddition was made with regard to cash introduced via an entry operator i.e.,\none, Mr Vipin Garg. The amount added qua this aspect was pegged at\nRs.1,54,07,100.\n11. Despite these additions, which

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

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

2 (Del HC) dt.13-7-23,\nconcluded that-\n“7. The Tribunal has via the impugned order set aside the additions made\nqua the income of the asseessee inter alia, on the Gr. that there was no\napplication of mind by the Addl.CIT in granting approval u/s153D.\n8. To be noted, an assessment order was framed qua the asseessee\nu/s153A, rws.143

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

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

2 days prior to the deadline thereby putting the\napproving authority under great pressure and not giving him sufficient time\nto apply his mind;\n(ii) the final approval must be in writing;\n(iii) The fact that approval has been obtained, should be mentioned in the\nbody of the assessment order.\n14. During the course of arguments, Id counsel