SHRI SUBHASHCHAND CHANDAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine

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

carried irreparable loss. Hence this Affidavit. Nagpur – 22/4/2021 Deponent” Shri Subhashchand Chandak (HUF) ITA no.26/Nag./2021 4. No reasonable or sufficient cause has been placed on record in support of the delay in filing the present appeal. The Affidavit is nebulous and cryptic and do not address the issue of delay in precise terms. When this fact was pointed

SUBHASHCHAND SUNDERLAL CHANKAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine

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

carried irreparable loss. Hence this Affidavit. Nagpur – 22/4/2021 Deponent” Shri Subhashchand Chandak (HUF) ITA no.26/Nag./2021 4. No reasonable or sufficient cause has been placed on record in support of the delay in filing the present appeal. The Affidavit is nebulous and cryptic and do not address the issue of delay in precise terms. When this fact was pointed

VISHAL KISHORILAL JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

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

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted

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

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

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted

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

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can't usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

PRADEEP DATTATRAYA BANGINWAR,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 28/Nag/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pradeep Dattatraya Banginwar, At- Trimurti Sales, Datta Chowk, Yavatmal-445 001. Pan : Abcpb5111C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.M. Gandhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :17.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2022

loss account for the year under consideration that was filed a/w his original return of income, the Assessing Officer 7 Pradeep Dattatraya Bangirwar Vs. Pr CIT-II found favor with the aforesaid claim of the assessee and accepted the income returned by him as such. 7. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand

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

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

carried out by Pr. Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Kolkatta. The learned assessing officer has not provided the details forwarded by Investigation Wing, Kolkatta as well as statement of persons, whose statement were recorded during the course of investigation made by the Pr. Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Kolkatta. The learned assessing officer has not granted opportunity to being cross

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

carried out by Pr. Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Kolkatta. The learned assessing officer has not provided the details forwarded by Investigation Wing, Kolkatta as well as statement of persons, whose statement were recorded during the course of investigation made by the Pr. Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Kolkatta. The learned assessing officer has not granted opportunity to being cross

FATTESING PUNAJI DHABRE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX – 2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

carry out the assessment de novo. 4. Appellant craves leave to add or alter any other ground that may be taken at the time of hearing.” 2. Vide application dated 26.08.2024, the assessee has raised following additional grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and the law, the learned PCIT erred in passing revisional order

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

loss account totalling to Rs.15,64,07,053/- The learned CIT further observed that, this cost of free construction to the owner valued at Rs.2,81,33,000/- is required to be disallowed and reduced from the work-in-progress. In this regard, the assessee submits that, work-in- progress amounting to Rs. 15,64,07,053 consist of following

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

loss account totalling to Rs.15,64,07,053/- The learned CIT further observed that, this cost of free construction to the owner valued at Rs.2,81,33,000/- is required to be disallowed and reduced from the work-in-progress. In this regard, the assessee submits that, work-in- progress amounting to Rs. 15,64,07,053 consist of following

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

Loss account, Books of accounts and other documents for verification and the same has been verified has been categorically stated in this assessment order dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -3, Nagpur. (iv) It was submitted that subsequently, the appellant was served with notice u/s. 148 of Act on 30.03.2021, intimating that there were reasons

MAYUR KHARA,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

loss of revenue or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Unless both these factors co-exist or exist simultaneously, the Commissioner cannot invoke or resort to section 263. It cannot be exercised to correct every conceivable error committed by an ITO. Before the suomoto power of revision can be exercised, the Commissioner must at least prima facie find both

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

forward from earlier/preceding year i.e., assessment year 2013-14; and in such a situation, it 39 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 cannot be added under section 68 in as mistakenly proposed by the Assessing Officer and this mistake of the Assessing Officer has not been cared by the Addl.CIT. More particularly, the impugned

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

forward from earlier/preceding year i.e., assessment year 2013-14; and in such a situation, it 39 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 cannot be added under section 68 in as mistakenly proposed by the Assessing Officer and this mistake of the Assessing Officer has not been cared by the Addl.CIT. More particularly, the impugned

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

forward from earlier/preceding year i.e., assessment year 2013-14; and in such a situation, it 39 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 cannot be added under section 68 in as mistakenly proposed by the Assessing Officer and this mistake of the Assessing Officer has not been cared by the Addl.CIT. More particularly, the impugned

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

forward from earlier/preceding year i.e., assessment year 2013-14; and in such a situation, it 39 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 cannot be added under section 68 in as mistakenly proposed by the Assessing Officer and this mistake of the Assessing Officer has not been cared by the Addl.CIT. More particularly, the impugned

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

forward from earlier/preceding year i.e., assessment year 2013-14; and in such a situation, it 39 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 cannot be added under section 68 in as mistakenly proposed by the Assessing Officer and this mistake of the Assessing Officer has not been cared by the Addl.CIT. More particularly, the impugned