ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

disallowance of any expenditure or suppression of income detected by the Revenue. In the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal held that in absence of any material being brought on record to show that the valuation done as on 31.3.2009 is incorrect, no occasion to apply Section 69C of the Act can arise. The ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER , NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

disallowance of any expenditure or suppression of income detected by the Revenue. In the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal held that in absence of any material being brought on record to show that the valuation done as on 31.3.2009 is incorrect, no occasion to apply Section 69C of the Act can arise. The ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

disallowance of any expenditure or suppression of income detected by the Revenue. In the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal held that in absence of any material being brought on record to show that the valuation done as on 31.3.2009 is incorrect, no occasion to apply Section 69C of the Act can arise. The ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

disallowance of any expenditure or suppression of income detected by the Revenue. In the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal held that in absence of any material being brought on record to show that the valuation done as on 31.3.2009 is incorrect, no occasion to apply Section 69C of the Act can arise. The ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

disallowance of any expenditure or suppression of income detected by the Revenue. In the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal held that in absence of any material being brought on record to show that the valuation done as on 31.3.2009 is incorrect, no occasion to apply Section 69C of the Act can arise. The ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA RADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

disallowance of any expenditure or suppression of income detected by the Revenue. In the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal held that in absence of any material being brought on record to show that the valuation done as on 31.3.2009 is incorrect, no occasion to apply Section 69C of the Act can arise. The ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

155 (SC) concluded that- “4. Notice was issued by the concerned jurisdictional AOs to the said assessees who contended that the period for which they were required to file returns, commenced only from the date the materials were forwarded to their AOs. The Revenue, on the other hand, urged that the date (relatable to the period for which 6 years

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

155 (SC) concluded that- “4. Notice was issued by the concerned jurisdictional AOs to the said assessees who contended that the period for which they were required to file returns, commenced only from the date the materials were forwarded to their AOs. The Revenue, on the other hand, urged that the date (relatable to the period for which 6 years

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

155 (SC) concluded that- “4. Notice was issued by the concerned jurisdictional AOs to the said assessees who contended that the period for which they were required to file returns, commenced only from the date the materials were forwarded to their AOs. The Revenue, on the other hand, urged that the date (relatable to the period for which 6 years

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

155 (SC) concluded that- “4. Notice was issued by the concerned jurisdictional AOs to the said assessees who contended that the period for which they were required to file returns, commenced only from the date the materials were forwarded to their AOs. The Revenue, on the other hand, urged that the date (relatable to the period for which 6 years

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

155 (SC) concluded that- “4. Notice was issued by the concerned jurisdictional AOs to the said assessees who contended that the period for which they were required to file returns, commenced only from the date the materials were forwarded to their AOs. The Revenue, on the other hand, urged that the date (relatable to the period for which 6 years

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

155 ITR 711) (para 10 & 11). 10/ On the facts and circumstances in the law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in not consider that the said scrutiny assessment was limited scrutiny assessment and hence issue of addition to income is beyond scope of such limited assessment proceedings in light of binding circulars of CBDT and judicial pronouncements.” 3 Tajshree Autowheels

RAJESH SARDA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Rajesh Sarda, Acit, Central Circle – 2(2), Nagpur 14, Daga Lay–Out, Ambazari Road, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440033. Maharashtra – 440001. [Pan: Ahaps4925M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

disallowance of long term capital gain on sale of two impugned scrips by AO and confirmed by ld CIT(A) has been discussed in earlier paras of this order, which is not repeated here for the sake of brevity. However, we may record that during assessment, the assessee has furnished complete documentary evidence in the form of Sauda Summary Report

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

Section 30 of the I.T. Act. Taking into 30 ACIT, CIRCLE-7, NAGPUR VS M/s. Newquest Corporation Ltd. (Now known as Avantha Holdings Ltd) consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Department has not filed any supporting evidence/ rebuttal against the written submission ld. AR of the assessee except arguing that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(2), NAGPUR vs. AJAY VISHANDAS KAMNANI, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

155 6,372,490 3.39 2018–19 221,608,352 241,335,770 3,876,403 1.61 2017–18 299,