SHAILESH CHAMPAKLAL VAKHARIA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (CENTRAL) CIRCLE - 1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

natural justice. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify and withdraw any grounds before or during the course of appellate proceedings.” 3. Facts in Brief:– For the year under consideration, on 27/03/2018, the assessee filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") disclosing total income

NARESH VASANTRAJ TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

house property deserve to be deleted in the interest of justice. 6) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. Ground no.1, being general in nature

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

house property deserve to be deleted in the interest of justice. 6) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. Ground no.1, being general in nature

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

house property deserve to be deleted in the interest of justice. 6) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. Ground no.1, being general in nature

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

house property deserve to be deleted in the interest of justice. 6) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. Ground no.1, being general in nature

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

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

house property, income from business and income from other sources. The assessee has also shown income from exempt capital gains from transfer of equity shares. The assessee has purchased 422500 shares of Swift IT Infrastructure and Services Ltd. by cheque on 16/03/2012 during the previous year relevant to Asstt. Year 2013-2014 and the same were shown in the balance

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

house property, income from business and income from other sources. The assessee has also shown income from exempt capital gains from transfer of equity shares. 7 Shri Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani ITA no.410/Nag./2019 A.Y. 2014–15 The assessee has purchased 422500 shares of Swift IT Infrastructure and Services Ltd. by cheque on 16/03/2012 during the previous year relevant to Asstt

M/S MUSTAFA ASSOCIATES,,CHANDRAPUR vs. C.I.T.-3, NAGPUR

The appeal of the appellant is allowed in term of aforestated observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 167/Nag/2015 आयकर िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 M/S Mustafa Associates, Nr Vasant Bhavan, Kasturba Rd. Chandrapur – 442 402(Maharashtra) Pan : Aalfm 6727 F . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Aayakar Bhavan, Nagpur – 440 001 (Mh) . . . . . . . ""यथ" / Respondent }Kjk / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. C. Thakar Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Headoo सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 18/02/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull, Am; The Appellant Against The Revisionary Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Nagpur [For Short “Cit”] Dt. 07/03/2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Dove Out Of Regular Order Of Assessment Dt. 27/11/2012 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer-Ward-2, Chandrapur [For Shot “Ao”], Filed These Appeals Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [For Short “The Tribunal”] U/S 253. Itat-Nagpur Page 1 Of 16

Property Tax thereon. Hence non-production of completion certificate which is technical in nature cannot be reason for denying deduction u/s 80BI(10) of the Act overlooking the other condition which were duly complied in present case, as every condition of the statute cannot be seen as mandatory. If substantial compliance thereof is established on record, minor deviation thereof would

NARAYAN MAHADEORAO DHAWANE,MAHARASHTRA, NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD -5(1), MAHARASHTRA, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

natural justice and the same is to be deleted. 5. Appellant craves a right to add, modify, alter or withdraw and of the ground/s of appeal during the course of hearing. PRAYS: Appellant prays before your honor to delete the addition of Rs. 4,48,628/- or the appropriate relief is to be granted as the Honorable

NEST HOSPITALITY,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

house property ` 16,60,826” 4. I find that there was no representation before any of the authorities below. The assessee is a non–filer of return of income and no compliance whatsoever. The learned Counsel for the assessee, during the hearing, pleaded that he was an arguable strong case on merits. He is willing to go back

SHREE MAYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

natural justice and deserve to be quashed as per law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the learned AO has grossly erred and CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 57,68,020 as Income U/s 43CA of the Income Tax Act-1961 which is illegal and which deserves

SHREE MAYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

natural justice and deserve to be quashed as per law. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the learned AO has grossly erred and CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 57,68,020 as Income U/s 43CA of the Income Tax Act-1961 which is illegal and which deserves

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

justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected." 13. This Court has in Smt Jami Nirmala [2021] (Ori HC) and Smt Smrutisudha Nayak [2022] (Ori HC) relied on Kabul Chawla [2015] (Del HC) where inter alia it was observed as under: “…(iv) Although Section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence

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

justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected." 13. This Court has in Smt Jami Nirmala [2021] (Ori HC) and Smt Smrutisudha Nayak [2022] (Ori HC) relied on Kabul Chawla [2015] (Del HC) where inter alia it was observed as under: “…(iv) Although Section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence

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

justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected." 13. This Court has in Smt Jami Nirmala [2021] (Ori HC) and Smt Smrutisudha Nayak [2022] (Ori HC) relied on Kabul Chawla [2015] (Del HC) where inter alia it was observed as under: “…(iv) Although Section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence

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

justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected." 13. This Court has in Smt Jami Nirmala [2021] (Ori HC) and Smt Smrutisudha Nayak [2022] (Ori HC) relied on Kabul Chawla [2015] (Del HC) where inter alia it was observed as under: “…(iv) Although Section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence

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

justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected." 13. This Court has in Smt Jami Nirmala [2021] (Ori HC) and Smt Smrutisudha Nayak [2022] (Ori HC) relied on Kabul Chawla [2015] (Del HC) where inter alia it was observed as under: “…(iv) Although Section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence

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

justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected." 13. This Court has in Smt Jami Nirmala [2021] (Ori HC) and Smt Smrutisudha Nayak [2022] (Ori HC) relied on Kabul Chawla [2015] (Del HC) where inter alia it was observed as under: “…(iv) Although Section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence