M/S ABHIJIT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2007–08

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

139(1) declaring total income of ` 15,44,910. The Assessing Officer concluded the assessment under section 143(3) r/w section 153A of the Act on 31st December 2013, assessing income at ` 2,05,83,440. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposing penalty of ` 30,74,550, observing as under

DCIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR vs. M/S TRISTER RETAIL CONCEPTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, department’s appeal stands dismissed

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

139 of the Act on 27/10/2015. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 143(3) of the Act after making addition of ` 4,72,27,468. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty

ASHA VINOD TATTE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

5. In levy of penalty u/s 271D on amount of Rs.6,51,000/- includes Rs.6,00,000/- paid by cheque by purchaser which is not in violation of provisions of sec. 269SS of I.T. Act 1961. Levy of penalty is unjustified and excessive. 6. Order imposing penalty u/s 271D is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 7. Any other ground

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

139 : Rs.4,36,460/- Assessed income u/s. 143(3) : Rs.4,61,460/- Returned income u/s. 148 : Rs.4,61,460/- Add: Unexplained cash credit : Rs. 14,10,00,000/- (discussed above in Para no. 4) Add: Unexplained cash credit : Rs. 5,57,10,000/- (discussed above in Para no. 5) ––––––––––––––– Assessed income : Rs.19,71,71,460 –––––––––––––- 12. The impugned assessment order

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

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

139(1) was filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation u/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in the case of D.P.Jain Group of cases in which residential premises

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

139(1) which was increased while filing return in response to notice u/s 153A was on account of arithmetical mistake. Therefore, on perusal of various judicial 11 Smt. AanjuSaraf pronouncements as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to such enhancement. 13. With respect to eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80IB

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

139(1) which was increased while filing return in response to notice u/s 153A was on account of arithmetical mistake. Therefore, on perusal of various judicial 11 Smt. AanjuSaraf pronouncements as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to such enhancement. 13. With respect to eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80IB

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

139(1) which was increased while filing return in response to notice u/s 153A was on account of arithmetical mistake. Therefore, on perusal of various judicial 11 Smt. AanjuSaraf pronouncements as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to such enhancement. 13. With respect to eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80IB

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

139(1) which was increased while filing return in response to notice u/s 153A was on account of arithmetical mistake. Therefore, on perusal of various judicial 11 Smt. AanjuSaraf pronouncements as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to such enhancement. 13. With respect to eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80IB

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

139(1) which was increased while filing return in response to notice u/s 153A was on account of arithmetical mistake. Therefore, on perusal of various judicial 11 Smt. AanjuSaraf pronouncements as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to such enhancement. 13. With respect to eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80IB

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

139(1) which was increased while filing return in response to notice u/s 153A was on account of arithmetical mistake. Therefore, on perusal of various judicial 11 Smt. AanjuSaraf pronouncements as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to such enhancement. 13. With respect to eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80IB

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

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

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

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

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

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

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

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

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

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

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

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section