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

112 lakh in set aside proceedings. The learned PCIT has no authority to direct reference to the Valuation Cell, because he does not have the power. At this stage, we refer to Para–5 of the impugned order passed by the learned PCIT vis–a–vis Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act. The said provision is reproduced below

CHANDRAKUMAR MADHUSUDANJI JAJODIA,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of interest at ` 1,99,520. 9. Before us the learned Counsel, Shri Kishore P. Dewani, Advocate, appearing for the assessee submitted that in the first appellate order, the learned CIT(A) did not considered and/or given one single reason as to why the submissions of the assessee have not been accepted. The learned Counsel submitted that the confirmation

GEC INFRASTRUCTURE CO. ,BUTIBORI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegec Infrastructure Co. A–15/5,,Midc Industrial Area, Butibori, Nagpur 441 112, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Aagfg3541E V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur. Assessee By :Shri R.K. Ganeriwal.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjeet Kumar Shah.Sr.Dr

112, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. PAN – AAGFG3541E v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur. Assessee by :Shri R.K. Ganeriwal.AR Revenue by :Shri Surjeet kumar shah.Sr.DR Date of Hearing –06/10/2025 Date of Order – 07/10/2025 O R D E R The assessee has filed the appeal against the order dated 26/12/2023, passed by the CIT(A)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

ASSTT. CIT, CIR- 7, NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEWQUEST CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

112/- was debited to the P&L A/c. for the year under consideration. The balance expenditure of Rs.6,36,73,030/- has been deferred over a period of 3 years as deferred revenue expenditure. However, in its return, the assessee company has claimed the entire expenditure incurred on brand promotion as allowable expenses. In such facts, it was held

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

disallowance. There may be cases where the Assessing Officer undertakes a superficial and random investigation that may justify a remit, albeit the Commissioner of Income Tax must record the abject failure and lapse on the part of the Assessing Officer to establish both the error and the prejudice caused to the Revenue. Recording the aforesaid, the special leave petition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. UNIQUE REALITIES BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

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

112 (IT AT- Ahmedabad) (Mag) 9. The Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT in case of Unique Organiors and Developers (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT, 70 TTJ 131 10. The Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT in case Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan Vs. DCIT, 130 TTJ 42 (UO) Reliance is placed on the judgement following judgment where it has been held that no addition

KOLSA KHADAN KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT SILLEWADA PROJECT,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

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

112 (IT AT- Ahmedabad) (Mag) 9. The Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT in case of Unique Organiors and Developers (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT, 70 TTJ 131 10. The Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT in case Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan Vs. DCIT, 130 TTJ 42 (UO) Reliance is placed on the judgement following judgment where it has been held that no addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. UNIQUE REALITIES BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS , NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

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

112 (IT AT- Ahmedabad) (Mag) 9. The Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT in case of Unique Organiors and Developers (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT, 70 TTJ 131 10. The Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT in case Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan Vs. DCIT, 130 TTJ 42 (UO) Reliance is placed on the judgement following judgment where it has been held that no addition