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

4 requirements\nthat are mandated therein, (i) the AO should submit the draft assessment\norder \"well in time”. Here it was submitted just 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

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

4 requirements\nthat are mandated therein, (i) the AO should submit the draft assessment\norder \"well in time”. Here it was submitted just 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

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

4) and sec131(1A) of the assessee or any other person/\nappraisal report of the Investigation Wing of the Department/ materials on\nhand with the Department at the time of initiation of search or material\nevidences gathered were placed for its verification and the same were duly\nverified and/or examined by him as mandated u/s153D. In the absence of\ncompliance

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

4 requirements\nthat are mandated therein, (i) the AO should submit the draft assessment\norder "well in time”. Here it was submitted just 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

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

4 requirements\nthat are mandated therein, (i) the AO should submit the draft assessment\norder "well in time”. Here it was submitted just 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

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

4. We find similarity in facts found in the case by the Trib. The approval\ndoes not even say the Jt.CIT had perused the files. As such, the contention\nsought to be raised in the appeal is covered by Serajuddin & Co (2023) (Ori\nHC). In the circumstances, the appeal and applications are dismissed.”\nACIT v. Serajuddin & Co (2023) 150 taxmann.com

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

4) and sec131(1A) of the assessee or any other person/\nappraisal report of the Investigation Wing of the Department/ materials on\nhand with the Department at the time of initiation of search or material\nevidences gathered were placed for its verification and the same were duly\nverified and/or examined by him as mandated u/s153D. In the absence of\ncompliance

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

4 requirements\nthat are mandated therein, (i) the AO should submit the draft assessment\norder "well in time”. Here it was submitted just 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

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

4 requirements\nthat are mandated therein, (i) the AO should submit the draft assessment\norder "well in time”. Here it was submitted just 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

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

4 requirements that are mandated therein,\n(i) the AO should submit the draft assessment order \"well in time”. Here it\nwas submitted just 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

LOKMANYA TILAD JANAKALYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

gains of business or profession. However as it has already been held by me in ground no. 2 to 4 that assessee is not eligible for exemption u/s 11 this argument of the appellant is not tenable. The requirement to deduct tax at source does not exclude entities which are exempted u/s :11. The intent of the legislature was that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3),, NAGPUR vs. M/S. 21ST CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

gainfully refer to the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court expositions in this case as under; 1) CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 394 ITR 680 had held as under: (e) We find that the proviso to section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1st April, 2013. Thus it would