AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-5,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

251(a) of the IT Act which empowers CIT(A) only to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment and cannot admit claim of the assessee for the first time. Also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (229 ITR 383) does not vests any power to CIT(A) to entertain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR vs. AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

251(a) of the IT Act which empowers CIT(A)\nonly to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment and cannot admit\nclaim of the assessee for the first time. Also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (229 ITR 383) does not\nvests any power to CIT(A) to entertain

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

section 153D becomes an empty formality without due process of law and, thus, not sustainable. This is nothing but an approval by way of mere mechanical exercise accepting the draft assessment order without any independent application of mind by the Addl.CIT. Following case laws are relied on:- (i) Sahara India (Firm) Luck v. CIT (2008) 169 Taxman

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

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

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

section 153D becomes an empty formality without due process of law and, thus, not sustainable. This is nothing but an approval by way of mere mechanical exercise accepting the draft assessment order without any independent application of mind by the Addl.CIT. Following case laws are relied on:- (i) Sahara India (Firm) Luck v. CIT (2008) 169 Taxman

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

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

2 days prior to the deadline\nthereby putting the approving authority under great pressure and not giving\nhim sufficient time to apply his mind; (ii) the final approval must be in\nwriting; (iii) The fact that approval has been obtained, should be mentioned\nin the body of the assessment order.”\n14. During the course of arguments, Id counsel

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

2 days prior to the deadline\nthereby putting the approving authority under great pressure and not giving\nhim sufficient time to apply his mind; (ii) the final approval must be in\nwriting; (iii) The fact that approval has been obtained, should be mentioned\nin the body of the assessment order.”\n14. During the course of arguments, Id counsel

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\nthereby putting the approving authority under great pressure and not giving\nhim sufficient time to apply his mind; (ii) the final approval must be in\nwriting; (iii) The fact that approval has been obtained, should be mentioned\nin the body of the assessment order.”\n14. During the course of arguments, Id counsel

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

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

251 (Chd-Trib) dt.7-6-21,\nITA No.1573/ Chd/ 2018; AY16-17, held that-\n“15. ....In the present case before us, we noted that the Addl.CIT did not\nmention anything in the approval memo towards his process of deriving\nsatisfaction so as to exhibit his due application of mind. We noted that the\nAddl.CIT merely approved the letter and the relevant

YRCE EDUCATE PVT. LTD,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

251 (Chd-Trib) dt.7-6-21,\nITA No.1573/ Chd/ 2018; AY16-17, held that-\n“15. ....In the present case before us, we noted that the Addl.CIT did not\nmention anything in the approval memo towards his process of deriving\nsatisfaction so as to exhibit his due application of mind. We noted that the\nAddl.CIT merely approved the letter and the relevant

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

2 SCC 181 (SC) observed as under:\n\"58. An order of approval is also not to be mechanically granted. The same\nshould be done having regard to the materials on record. The explanation\ngiven by the assessee, if any, would be a relevant factor. The approving\n54\nUmesh Sadashiv Thakre