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

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

M/S SHRIGOPAL RAMESHKUMAR SALES PVT. LTD ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay of 702 days in filing of the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 5. The sole dispute involved in this appeal relates to addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) amounting to ` 2,50,00,000, allegedly held to have been received by the assessee in cash. 6. The assessee is engaged

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condone the delay of 267 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit, as no mala fide intention can be ascribed to the assessee. 5. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is a Company engaged in financial activities. The assessee, on 30/09/2013, filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring total loss

GEETA PREMCHAND NATHANI,WARDHA vs. OFFICER, WARDHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.19/Nag/2026 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Geeta Premchand Nathani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Near Bhagatsing Square Janta Ward 2, Wardha Square Ramnagar, Wardha- 442001, Maharashtra Pan: Amopn1843Q Appellant Respondent

search and seizure and seizure action conducted u/s.132 of the Act in the case of Ambica Ashish Tradelink LLP certain incriminating material pertaining to assessee were found indicating that assessee had made cash 2 Geeta Premchand Nathani transaction of Rs.4,16,000/- with M/s. Ambica Ashish Tarde Link LLP. Case of the assessee reopened by way of issuance of notice

A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR. 2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S SAPHIRE STEEL PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATTA (W.B)

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted in his case on 15-09-2009. On careful reading of the said paragraph, we note that the search in the case of D.P. Sarda was affected in connection with Sunil Hitech group. The AO opined that the said D.P. Sarda indulged in several money laundering activities

A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR. 2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S SAPHIRE STEEL PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATTA (W.B)

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted in his case on 15-09-2009. On careful reading of the said paragraph, we note that the search in the case of D.P. Sarda was affected in connection with Sunil Hitech group. The AO opined that the said D.P. Sarda indulged in several money laundering activities

A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR. 2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S SAPHIRE STEEL PVT. LTD.,, KOLKATTA (W.B)

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted in his case on 15-09-2009. On careful reading of the said paragraph, we note that the search in the case of D.P. Sarda was affected in connection with Sunil Hitech group. The AO opined that the said D.P. Sarda indulged in several money laundering activities

M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 1(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

condone the delay of 32 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 3. The sole issue for our adjudication relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted purchases. 4. Facts in Brief:– In this case, during the year, the assessee is engaged in the business of trading

VINOD SANWALDAS DHINGRA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

delay of 222 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. I now proceed to dispose off the appeal on merit. 3 Vinod Sanwaldas Dhingra ITA no.375/Nag./2023 4. Fact in Brief :- The assessee is engaged in the interest business and assessee is given loan and advances to various parties. The assessee also derived income from commission. The assessee