ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCITACIT CIRCLE-3 , NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1)(c) Appeal A.Y. 2014–15 by Assessee Centre, Delhi We take up appeal in ITA no.498/Nag./2024, for the assessment year 2013–14, as the lead case, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. The Learned Commissioner of Appeals disposed of the appeal after the first hearing, without granting the assessee any further opportunity for a personal

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, , NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1)(c) Appeal A.Y. 2014–15 by Assessee Centre, Delhi We take up appeal in ITA no.498/Nag./2024, for the assessment year 2013–14, as the lead case, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. The Learned Commissioner of Appeals disposed of the appeal after the first hearing, without granting the assessee any further opportunity for a personal

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1)(c) Appeal A.Y. 2014–15 by Assessee Centre, Delhi We take up appeal in ITA no.498/Nag./2024, for the assessment year 2013–14, as the lead case, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. The Learned Commissioner of Appeals disposed of the appeal after the first hearing, without granting the assessee any further opportunity for a personal

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1)(c) Appeal A.Y. 2014–15 by Assessee Centre, Delhi We take up appeal in ITA no.498/Nag./2024, for the assessment year 2013–14, as the lead case, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. The Learned Commissioner of Appeals disposed of the appeal after the first hearing, without granting the assessee any further opportunity for a personal

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1)(c) Appeal A.Y. 2014–15 by Assessee Centre, Delhi We take up appeal in ITA no.498/Nag./2024, for the assessment year 2013–14, as the lead case, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. The Learned Commissioner of Appeals disposed of the appeal after the first hearing, without granting the assessee any further opportunity for a personal

DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR vs. SANT SHANKAR MAHARAJ AASHRAM, DHAMANGAON AMRAVATI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

271, which included non- compliance issues. Let us discuss the new section along with the Memorandum explaining the clause and also the FM's speech to understand better. 4.3 Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. 270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during

SANT SHANKAR MAHARAJ AASHRAM,AMRAVATI vs. DCIT ACIT CIR-EXEMP, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

271, which included non- compliance issues. Let us discuss the new section along with the Memorandum explaining the clause and also the FM's speech to understand better. 4.3 Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. 270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during

ALFIYA AYAZALI SAYYAD,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 27/12/2017. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances, the learned CIT(A) erred in not taking cognizance of the appellate order passed by learned CIT(A)-2, Nagpur Alfiya Ayazali Sayyad ITA no.206/Nag./2022 in appeal against quantum proceedings wherein the additions have been restricted to 10% of total alleged

BHAVESH SURESH SEJPAL,AKOT vs. ITO WARD-3, AKOLA

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for under-reporting is initiated separately.” Consequent upon the issuance of the assessment order passed under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding as under

SHRIKANT BHERULAL SHARMA LATE BHERULAL GIRDHARILAL SHARMA ,WASHIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AKOLA

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

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

u/s. 143(3) and ordered the reassessment of the said issue. However he added one more issue (which was not a part of limited scrutiny) viz. A.O. to examine cash balance of Rs.23,87,017/- and bank balance of Rs. 19,22,485/- in Akola Janta Coop. Bank Ltd. The Ld. Pr.C.I.T had passed the said order without properly applying

SHRIKANT BHERULAL SHARMA LATE BHERULAL GIRDHARILAL SHARMA,WASHIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3 , AKOLA

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

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

u/s. 143(3) and ordered the reassessment of the said issue. However he added one more issue (which was not a part of limited scrutiny) viz. A.O. to examine cash balance of Rs.23,87,017/- and bank balance of Rs. 19,22,485/- in Akola Janta Coop. Bank Ltd. The Ld. Pr.C.I.T had passed the said order without properly applying

SHRI AJAYSINGH GAJANANSINGH GOUR,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GONDIA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

penalty proceedings Vis 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 is initiated separately.” Aggrieved by the assessment order so passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. 3. The assessee, before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), filed additional grounds of appeal taking a legal plea challenging re- assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

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

reassessment is bad in law and the addition made in the assessment order is illegal as no incriminating document or unaccounted income was found during the course of search in the case of assessee. We would be submitting further while discussing the individual unds for addition made in the Assessment order. GROUND NO. 2; That the learned AO erred

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

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

reassessment is bad in law and the addition made in the assessment order is illegal as no incriminating document or unaccounted income was found during the course of search in the case of assessee. We would be submitting further while discussing the individual unds for addition made in the Assessment order. GROUND NO. 2; That the learned AO erred

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

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

reassessment is bad in law and the addition made in the assessment order is illegal as no incriminating document or unaccounted income was found during the course of search in the case of assessee. We would be submitting further while discussing the individual unds for addition made in the Assessment order. GROUND NO. 2; That the learned AO erred

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

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

reassessment is bad in law and the addition made in the assessment order is illegal as no incriminating document or unaccounted income was found during the course of search in the case of assessee. We would be submitting further while discussing the individual unds for addition made in the Assessment order. GROUND NO. 2; That the learned AO erred

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

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

reassessment is bad in law and the addition made in the assessment order is illegal as no incriminating document or unaccounted income was found during the course of search in the case of assessee. We would be submitting further while discussing the individual unds for addition made in the Assessment order. GROUND NO. 2; That the learned AO erred

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

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

reassessment is bad in law and the addition made in the assessment order is illegal as no incriminating document or unaccounted income was found during the course of search in the case of assessee. We would be submitting further while discussing the individual unds for addition made in the Assessment order. GROUND NO. 2; That the learned AO erred