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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 309/Nag/2015 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Amravati Peoples Co-Op. Bank Limited (Now Merged In The Cosmos Co-Op. Bank Ltd.) C/O. Cosmos Co-Op Bank Ltd. Jawahar Road, Amravati-444601. Pan : Aaact5899B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Amravati Circle, Amravati. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.G. Gandhi, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Agnes P. Thomas, Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09.05.2022

disallowing the assessee’s claim for set-off of brought forward losses of Rs. 59.92 lacs assessed its income at Rs.59.92 lacs. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). Before the CIT(Appeals) the assessee had, inter alia, assailed the validity of jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer for reopening

ACIT WARDHA CIRCLE,, WARDHA vs. JAMNALAL SONS PVT LID., WARDHA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 34/Nag/2015 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Wardha Circle, Wardha. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

reopened unless it is established that the alleged escapement of income was due to failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment. The Assessing Officer however, did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and came to the conclusion that the disallowance

ACIT WARDHA CIRCLE,, WARDHA vs. JAMNALAL SONS PVT LID., WARDHA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 34/Nag/2015 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Wardha Circle, Wardha. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

reopened unless it is established that the alleged escapement of income was due to failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment. The Assessing Officer however, did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and came to the conclusion that the disallowance

ACIT WARDHA CIRCLE,, WARDHA vs. JAMNALAL SONS PVT LID., WARDHA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 34/Nag/2015 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Wardha Circle, Wardha. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

reopened unless it is established that the alleged escapement of income was due to failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment. The Assessing Officer however, did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and came to the conclusion that the disallowance

DY. CIT- WARDHA CIRCLE,, WARDHA vs. JAMNALAL SONS PVT. LTD.,, WARDHA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 34/Nag/2015 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Wardha Circle, Wardha. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

reopened unless it is established that the alleged escapement of income was due to failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for assessment. The Assessing Officer however, did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and came to the conclusion that the disallowance

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S SUNFLAG IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos. 268 & 269/Nag/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Nagpur. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. 33, Mount Road, Sadar, Nagpur-440 001 Pan : Aaccs3376C ……""यथ" / Respondent

reopened its case u/s.147 of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 27.12.2017 disallowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S SUNFLAG IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos. 268 & 269/Nag/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Nagpur. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. 33, Mount Road, Sadar, Nagpur-440 001 Pan : Aaccs3376C ……""यथ" / Respondent

reopened its case u/s.147 of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 27.12.2017 disallowed

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

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

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