ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER , NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

income declared in the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, In respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

income declared in the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, In respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

income declared in the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, In respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

income declared in the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, In respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA RADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

income declared in the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, In respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

income declared in the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, In respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition

CITY LAND ASSOCIATES,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

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

additional income of Rs.2.20 Crore only for the year under consideration. The AO in the assessment order has not discussed anything relating to the difference amount of Rs.3.56 Crore. Hence, the order u/s.143(3) is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to revenue. From the above narrated facts it is clear that the AO has not applied

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

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

reassess the income after conducting proper inquiry on. issue of consultancy charges of Rs. 7.50 crores. A notice u/s 148 of IT Act dated 31.03.2021 was served on assessee to file ITR for AY 2016-17. In response to said notice assessee filed return on 26.05.2021 declaring total income ofRs. 6,63,44,360/- which included 4 Vidarbha Infotech

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

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six\nyears in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words\nthere will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs \"in\nwhich both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax\".\niv. Although Section 153A does not say that additions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. AAKAR HOTELS, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

income\ndeclared in the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is\nunearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking\ninto consideration the other material in respect of completed\nassessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of\ncompleted/unabated assessments, no addition

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

reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six\nyears in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words\nthere will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs \"in\nwhich both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax\".\niv. Although Section 153A does not say that additions

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

reassess the total income of 6 years immediately preceding the AY relevant to the PY in which search is conducted. Applying this yardstick, the 6 years would go up to 13-14. The search AY, namely, 19-20 has to be excluded. This is because, the statute talks of the 6 years preceding the search AY. But, while computing

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

reassess the total income of 6 years immediately preceding the AY relevant to the PY in which search is conducted. Applying this yardstick, the 6 years would go up to 13-14. The search AY, namely, 19-20 has to be excluded. This is because, the statute talks of the 6 years preceding the search AY. But, while computing

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

reassess the total income of 6 years immediately preceding the AY relevant to the PY in which search is conducted. Applying this yardstick, the 6 years would go up to 13-14. The search AY, namely, 19-20 has to be excluded. This is because, the statute talks of the 6 years preceding the search AY. But, while computing

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

reassess the total income of 6 years immediately preceding the AY relevant to the PY in which search is conducted. Applying this yardstick, the 6 years would go up to 13-14. The search AY, namely, 19-20 has to be excluded. This is because, the statute talks of the 6 years preceding the search AY. But, while computing

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

reassess the total income of 6 years immediately preceding the AY relevant to the PY in which search is conducted. Applying this yardstick, the 6 years would go up to 13-14. The search AY, namely, 19-20 has to be excluded. This is because, the statute talks of the 6 years preceding the search AY. But, while computing

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

Income Tax reported in (2008) 14 DTR 540 (ITAT Kolkata) (s) ACIT us. Jayendra P. Jhavery, ITA No. 2141 to 2144/Mum/2012 dated 20- 2-2014 It is therefore submitted that the notice issued u/s.153A for reassessment is bad in law and the addition

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

reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six\nyears in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words\nthere will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs \"in\nwhich both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax\".\niv. Although Section 153A does not say that additions

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

reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". iv. Although Section 153A does not say that additions