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. 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

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

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

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

143(3) r/w section 153A of the Act the Assessing Officer made various additions by examining the Profit & Loss Account, Tax Audit Report and assessed income was computed at ` 8,14,83,740. Claim u/s 24(a) from house property

SHRIRAM NARAYAN TIKDE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX, WARD 4(4) , NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

section 143(3) of the Act is bad in law. 2. The learned AO erred in making an addition of Rs.3,00,000 by alleging it to be an addition on account of asset over liability without appreciating that, the amount was a gift given by assessee's wife which was supported by withdrawals in the wife's bank account

DCIT-CC-1(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. R.B.S.D. AND F.N. DAS(EXPORT FIRM), VIZIANAGRAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

house U/s. 69C on addition of ` 74,51,358, and to make addition under section 37. 15. We have gone through order of the learned CIT(A) as well as details submitted we also found that the provisions of section 69C of the Act are not applicable in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has neither during entire

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

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

3) shows that the assessing officer, not being a court could rely upon material, which might not strictly be evidence admissible under the Indian Evidence Act for the purpose of making an order of assessment.\nxx) On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the plain reading of section

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

143(3) of the\nAct, even in the absence of incriminating documents found.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A)\nhas erred in allowing additional evidence under rule 46A whereas the\nassessee's case is not covered by the exceptions provided under rule 46A of\nthe I.T. Rules

SUFALAM INFRA PROJECTS LTD ,NAGPUR vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL ), NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

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

143(3) r.w.s. 153A was finalised on 30/12/2016 determining total income of Rs. 3,74,72,758/- for the A.Y. 2014-15. Assessee is a Company and engaged in the business as a Builder Property Developers. On perusal of balance sheet as on 31/03/2014, it is seen that assessee company has issued 2,00,000 shares (40%) to M/s Anubhav