LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

reopening of assessment u/s 148/147, the learned AO had issued show cause notice u/s 142(1) dated 10/12/2021 alongwith questionnaire (Copy of notice is enclosed at Pages 68- 71 of Factual Paperbook (Additional). 1.2 The assesse had filed its written submission on 01/03/2022 alongwith necessary documentary evidences (Refer Pages 1-67 of Factual Paperbook (Additional). 1.3 Therefore, the assessee submits

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

reopen the completed assessment. In paras 15 & 16, it is held as under:** 8. For the reasons stated here in below, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by Kabul Chawla (2015) (Del HC) and Saumya Construction (2016) (Guj), taking the view that no addition can be made in respect of completed assessment in absence of any incriminating

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

reopen the completed assessment. In paras 15 & 16, it is held as under:** 8. For the reasons stated here in below, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by Kabul Chawla (2015) (Del HC) and Saumya Construction (2016) (Guj), taking the view that no addition can be made in respect of completed assessment in absence of any incriminating

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

reopen the completed assessment. In paras 15 & 16, it is held as under:** 8. For the reasons stated here in below, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by Kabul Chawla (2015) (Del HC) and Saumya Construction (2016) (Guj), taking the view that no addition can be made in respect of completed assessment in absence of any incriminating

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

reopen the completed assessment. In paras 15 & 16, it is held as under:** 8. For the reasons stated here in below, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by Kabul Chawla (2015) (Del HC) and Saumya Construction (2016) (Guj), taking the view that no addition can be made in respect of completed assessment in absence of any incriminating

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

reopen the completed assessment. In paras 15 & 16, it is held as under:** 8. For the reasons stated here in below, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by Kabul Chawla (2015) (Del HC) and Saumya Construction (2016) (Guj), taking the view that no addition can be made in respect of completed assessment in absence of any incriminating

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

reopen the completed assessment. In paras 15 & 16, it is held as under:** 8. For the reasons stated here in below, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by Kabul Chawla (2015) (Del HC) and Saumya Construction (2016) (Guj), taking the view that no addition can be made in respect of completed assessment in absence of any incriminating

PRABODH SADASHIV SADAVARTEM(HUF),NAGPUR vs. I.T.O.(TDS) WARD -1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

disallowed an amount of Rs.24,57,440/- u/s. 54B of the Act, wherein, he denied the deduction to the assessee by holding that the assessee being HUF is not entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54B of the Act vide order dated 26-03-2014. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before

SHRI PRABODH SADASHIV SADAVARTE (HUF), NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(4),, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

disallowed an amount of Rs.24,57,440/- u/s. 54B of the Act, wherein, he denied the deduction to the assessee by holding that the assessee being HUF is not entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54B of the Act vide order dated 26-03-2014. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal before

SIMA RAVISINGH KACHHAWAH,UMRER vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadalesima Ravisingh Kachhawah, Girad Road, Om Nagar Umrer, ……………. Appellant Nagpur- 441203 Maharastra, Pan – Aqmpk2899K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

reopening is held to be void, the resulting assessment cannot survive b) The Honorable Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in the case of GandhibagSahkari Bank Ltd Vs DCIT& Ors Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, dated 25.09.2023 WP 3177/2022 took a view that we find that the Assessing Officer in absence of any independent verification of the information available

PANJABRAO DESHMUKH NAGARI SAHAKARIPAT SANSTHA MARYADIT BULDANA,BULDANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , KHAMGAON

reopened the case for assessment years 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2016-2017, treating large cash deposits as unexplained investments. The CIT(A) upheld these additions. For assessment year 2020-2021, the AO disallowed

SHRI JASVINDARSINGH GRURUBAXSINGH JOLLY,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-2(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

reopening proceedings, A.O. adopted the value supplied by the Registered valuer, thus changing his own reasonable belief. 6. Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the facts that the value as on 01- 04- 1981 was adopted on the basis of registered valuers report in the assessment order and in appellate order of co-owners of the property while

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

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

reopening of assessment and the additions made in the assessment order passedu/s 147 of the Act on 25/12/2018. Facts of the case: Assessee filed return of income under section 139(1) of I T Act on 17/10/2016 declaring income of Rs.4,60,44,360/–. Case was selected for scrutiny and various notices were issued which were duly replied

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

reopening of an assessment and reliance was placed upon CBDT Circular No.359 dated 10thMay, 1983 in the context of Section 54E of the Act. 7. Mr.Bajpayee, learned Counsel for the Revenue very fairly points out that the Revenue had preferred an appeal against the order of the Tribunal in Bhikulal Chandak HUF (supra) to this Court (Nagpur Bench) being Income

THE AMRAVATI PEOPLE CO-OP BANK LTD ( NOW MERGED IN THE COSMOS CO-OP BANK LTD),AMARAVATI vs. D.C.I.T. AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMARAVATI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

reopen the assessment. The AO did not accept the objections of the assessee and proceeded to complete the reassessment proceedings vide para No. 10 of the assessment order, wherein, he clearly held that there was no loss available for A.Y. 2002-03 which was assessed u/s. 143(3) of the Act determining Nil income after allowing deduction

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

disallowed entire amount of CSR expenditure which resulted in under assessment of tax, since Assessing Officer earlier himself disagreed with objections of audit party on ground that assessee-company was not required to incur any CSR expenses as per section 135 of Companies Act 2013 and CSR expenses incurred voluntarily would be allowable expenses, reopening

PRAVIN MANSUKHLAL PATELIYA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, WARDHA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

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

reopening and subsequent assessment needs to be annulled”? 2] The assessment was completed ex-parte u/s 144 of the I.T. Act without affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee and therefore, the addition is not sustainable. 3] Tax on interest income earned by the NBFC is already paid, so there is no loss of revenue to the Department

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

reopened /s 147 of the Act and scrutiny assessment was completed vide order u/s 43/3) r.w.s 147 dated 22.12.2011 assessing the total income as Rs 2,78,115/-. The CIT, Kolkata-1, Kolkata, set aside the scrutiny assessment to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and directed the AO to conduct enquiries into the share capital

INCOME TAX OFFICER, YAVATMAL vs. YAVATMAL DIST. CO-OP. BANK EMPLOYEE CO-OP. PAT SANSTHA LTD., YAVATMAL

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

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

reopening based on reappraisal of existing material without verifying, whether, during the course of Yavatmal District Co–operative Bank Employee Co–operative Pat Sanstha Ltd. ITA no.359/Nag./2022 assessment proceedings, the assessee had disclosed all material facts fully and truly, by submitting that, the interest income on investments is operational in nature and eligible for claim of deduction