ASTAVINAYAK GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JANEPHAL vs. ITO WARD-1, KHAMGAON

In the result, as delay in filing of appeal is not condoned, the appeal is not admitted and is rejected accordingly

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

31), which is assessed. Notice u/s 148 and subsequent assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 is without proper application of mind, without authority, unlawful and invalid ab initio. 5. Service of notice u/s 148 was not made on the assessee since it was sent on the email id of an old consultant. 6. That the appellant craves to leave

UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2 , NAGPUR

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

condoning the delay in filing\nboth the appeals.\n3. On merit, the Id. AR of the assessee submits that in case of assessee the Hon'ble\nNational Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai vide its order dated 07.10.2021\npassed in CP(IB) No. 2541 of 2019, in the matter of Tata Hitachi Construction\nMachinery Company Private Limited Vs Universal Industrial Equipment

UNIVERSAL INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT AND TECHNICAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. ,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2 , NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

condoning the delay in filing both the appeals. 3. On merit, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that in case of assessee the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai vide its order dated 07.10.2021 passed in CP(IB) No. 2541 of 2019, in the matter of Tata Hitachi Construction Machinery Company Private Limited Vs Universal Industrial Equipment

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed. Page 2 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos

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

delay of about 35 days to be condoned. The assessee, pursuant to the notice issued under section 250 of the Act, had filed a detailed submission in support of its claim. The CIT(A) was of the view that since the assessee has not responded and the case before his is time–barred on 31

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

delay of about 35 days to be condoned. The assessee, pursuant to the notice issued under section 250 of the Act, had filed a detailed submission in support of its claim. The CIT(A) was of the view that since the assessee has not responded and the case before his is time–barred on 31

MAYUR KHARA,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

31. The learned Principal CIT has not referred to Expln. 2 of s. 263 of the Act which has been inserted w.e.f. 1st June, 2015 however we agree with the finding of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case ofNarayanTatuRane(supra), wherein it has been held that explanation cannot said to have overridden the law as interpreted by the various

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