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

143(2) with reference to the original return filed by the Assessee on 30-9-12 expired on 30-9-13 and by that date, no notice was issued to the Assessee. Thus, the original ROI became final on 30-9-13 i.e., before the date of search. In other words, the assessment of AY12-13 had not abated. During

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

143(2) with reference to the original return filed by the Assessee on 30-9-12 expired on 30-9-13 and by that date, no notice was issued to the Assessee. Thus, the original ROI became final on 30-9-13 i.e., before the date of search. In other words, the assessment of AY12-13 had not abated. During

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

143(2) with reference to the original return filed by the Assessee on 30-9-12 expired on 30-9-13 and by that date, no notice was issued to the Assessee. Thus, the original ROI became final on 30-9-13 i.e., before the date of search. In other words, the assessment of AY12-13 had not abated. During

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

143(2) with reference to the original return filed by the Assessee on 30-9-12 expired on 30-9-13 and by that date, no notice was issued to the Assessee. Thus, the original ROI became final on 30-9-13 i.e., before the date of search. In other words, the assessment of AY12-13 had not abated. During

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

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

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

property as on the date of transfer. The authorized representative vehemently submitted that only one house was under the exclusive ownership of the appellant. The rests two houses were under the joint ownership. He pleaded that the “joint ownership” cannot be equated to “exclusive ownership” and as such the assessee was owner of only one residential house

SANJAY GULABCHAND GUPTA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

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

3. The assessee is an individual and has filed the return of income for AY 2017-18 on 30/10/2017 declaring total Income of ` Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") were issued. In response to various notices, assessee has duly complied the notices

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

property. The Assessing Officer after making enquiries and examination concluded assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 21/09/2019, accepting the income as per return filed by assessee. 4. The learned PCIT invoked jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The learned PCIT on a perusal of the record observed that the Assessing Officer had not verified issues during

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

143(3) dated 31/12/2008. The claim was enhanced to Rs 4,97,80,842/- by the assessee due to arithmetic error in calculating deduction at 25% of the profit of the eligible business. The AO has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act because it was made in the assessment order u/s.143 (3) of the Act dated

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

143(3) dated 31/12/2008. The claim was enhanced to Rs 4,97,80,842/- by the assessee due to arithmetic error in calculating deduction at 25% of the profit of the eligible business. The AO has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act because it was made in the assessment order u/s.143 (3) of the Act dated

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

143(3) dated 31/12/2008. The claim was enhanced to Rs 4,97,80,842/- by the assessee due to arithmetic error in calculating deduction at 25% of the profit of the eligible business. The AO has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act because it was made in the assessment order u/s.143 (3) of the Act dated

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

143(3) dated 31/12/2008. The claim was enhanced to Rs 4,97,80,842/- by the assessee due to arithmetic error in calculating deduction at 25% of the profit of the eligible business. The AO has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act because it was made in the assessment order u/s.143 (3) of the Act dated

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

143(3) dated 31/12/2008. The claim was enhanced to Rs 4,97,80,842/- by the assessee due to arithmetic error in calculating deduction at 25% of the profit of the eligible business. The AO has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act because it was made in the assessment order u/s.143 (3) of the Act dated

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

143(3) dated 31/12/2008. The claim was enhanced to Rs 4,97,80,842/- by the assessee due to arithmetic error in calculating deduction at 25% of the profit of the eligible business. The AO has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act because it was made in the assessment order u/s.143 (3) of the Act dated

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. VINODKUMAR RAJENDRALAL KOCHHAR, KAMPTEE

In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed

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

House Property, Income from Business, Income from Capital Gains and Income from other sources. 2. That the assessee has during the captioned assessment year opted for computation of his income U/s. 44AD in respect of his business activity. That the assessee while filing his return of Income u/s. 139(1) has filled the PART A-BS - Balance Sheet

VINAY RAMSHARANDAS AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), reasons for selection under CASS was to verify capital gain declared in the return of income filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee, during the year, has derived income from business of trading in Iron & Steel, income from house property

SHRI RAJESH DAYARAMANI,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-8,, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

143(2) of the Act was issued on 20th August 2010. Thereafter, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was also issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee is engaged in the business of contractorship and executes construction of roads for various State Government Authorities such as Public Works Department, Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority and local

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

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

143(3) of the Act, even in the absence of incriminating documents found. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in allowing additional evidence under rule 46A whereas the assessee's case is not covered by the exceptions provided under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules

A,C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.- 2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI DHARAMPAL R.AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

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

143(3) of the Act, even in the absence of incriminating documents found. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) has erred in allowing additional evidence under rule 46A whereas the assessee's case is not covered by the exceptions provided under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules