FATTESING PUNAJI DHABRE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX – 2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

condonation of delay in filing appeal by assessee. We find that before Tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee has vehemently argued that order under section 263

M/S PHOENIX INFRA ESTATE INTERNATIONAL LTD,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals by the assessee stand dismissed in limine

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condonation of delay are as under:– “A. Applicant has filed the above appeal on against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 12/02/2018 passed under section 263

SAGAR FIBRES PVT. LTD.,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

Section 263, is illegal and bad in law as apparently the appellant has not been allowed any relief vis-à-vis any claim made in the return of income by the Assessing Officer. 3. Whether the revision order passed by the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, without considering appellant's submission is illegal and bad in law, specifically

MOHD. SHAFI NAUSHAHI ,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX -IV , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.129/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Mohd. Shafi Naushahi, The Commissioner Of Plot No.194, Shahai Manzil, Vs Income Tax-Iv, Nagpur. Gumgaon Road, Dongaragaon, Nagpur. Pan: Adgpn2947L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22 /11/2023

section 263, the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. Condonation of Delay : 3. There is a delay in filing appeal

BHAWANA HARIRAM LAVHALE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

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

condone the nominal delay of 35 days in the appeals filed. The learned Counsel further explained that notice under section 148 and further notices mentioned in the assessment order are not received physically and, therefore, ex-parte assessment was made in the case of appellant. The assessee is Kaccha Adatiya (Commission Bhawana Hariram Lavhale ITA no.169-170/Nag./2024 Agent) at Amravati

BHAWANA HARIRAM LAVHALE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

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

condone the nominal delay of 35 days in the appeals filed. The learned Counsel further explained that notice under section 148 and further notices mentioned in the assessment order are not received physically and, therefore, ex-parte assessment was made in the case of appellant. The assessee is Kaccha Adatiya (Commission Bhawana Hariram Lavhale ITA no.169-170/Nag./2024 Agent) at Amravati

TAJSHREE AUTOWHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

263 (SC); Lowry v. Consolidated African Selection Trust 8 ITR Suppl 88). However, it is only because of the deeming fiction provided in such sections i.e. section 68 or 56(2)(viib) that in certain circumstances the amount received as capital can be deemed to be income. However, section 68 and 56(2)(viib) being the deeming provisions were created

DATTU SAMPAT VANKHEDE,NAGPUR vs. PCIT-2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which confers power on the CIT to revise an assessment order not on the recommendation of the AO and all the issues of sale of two Agriculture land exempted transaction were discussed and considered at the time of reassessment u/S 147 on the basis of initially formed the reason to believe

ANJUMAN HAMI E ISLAM ,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), NAGPUR

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

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

condone the delay of 38 days. 2 ITA No. 192/NAG/2022, A.Y. 2017-18 3. The assessee filed an application dated 15-12-2023 seeking permission to withdraw the present appeal. The relevant extract of the application reads as under : “2. With all humbleness and your kindness permission, we wish to withdraw this appeal. The present appeal was filed against

SIDDHIVINAYAK NAGRIK SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction by seeking

SIDDHIVINAYAK NAGRIK SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction by seeking

SIDDHIVINAYAK NAGRIK SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

delay on the part of the assessee in filing of the present appeal before us, therefore, the same merits to be condoned. 5. On merits, it was submitted by the ld. A.R, that as the A.O while framing the assessment had after making necessary verifications taken a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction by seeking

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S. FUELCO COAL INDIA LTD., NAGPUR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condoned. In this regard, it is to be mentioned here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 10/01/2022, passed in M.A. no.21 of 2022, in M.A. no.665 of 2021, in Suo-Motu Writ Petition (Civil) no.3 of 2020, has held that the limitation period for filing the appeal was extended upto 29/05/2022. In view of this, since

CYTEC INDIA SPECIALTY CHEMICALS & MATERIALS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Nag/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Cytec India Specialty Chemicals & Materials Pvt. Ltd., Equinox Business Park, The Principal Cit-2, Tower-4, 9Th Floor, Unit Vs No.903, Lbs Marag, Kurla Nagpur. West, Mumbai – 400070. Pan: Aaecc6848D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anuj Kisnadwala – Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 26/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Am: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Nagpur’S Order Dated 23.03.2020 In Proceedings U /S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, I Short “The Act”.

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, I short “the Act”. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. Cytec India Specialty Chemicals & Materials Pvt. Ltd., [A] 2. The assessee has first of all raised a legal question that the Pr.CIT’s impugned revision order before us does not contain any “DIN” number despite the fact that the CBDT