INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHANDARA, FIRST FLOOR, GANGA MOTORS BUILDING, Z P CHOWK, BHANDARA Z vs. ZILLA PARISHAD SHASHKIYA KARMCHARI SAHKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT, BHANDARA

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer is held to be invalid, the eligibility of deduction u/s 80P of the Act on the various

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

deduction, allowance or relief in the return; (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.--For the purpose of assessment or reassessment

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

reassess such income or recompute the loss or the\ndepreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such\n assessment

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

reassessment u/s 147 is initiated, ceased to exist. 3. That, the Assessing Officer has erred, while giving effect to order of CIT (A), Nagpur, in not deducting

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

reassessment u/s 147 is initiated, ceased to exist. 3. That, the Assessing Officer has erred, while giving effect to order of CIT (A), Nagpur, in not deducting

SUBHASHCHAND CHANDAK (HUF),NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

reassessment u/s 147 is initiated, ceased to exist. 4. That, the Assessing Officer has erred, while giving effect to order of CIT (A), Nagpur, in not deducting

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

reassessment proceeding, the assessing officer extensively examined the issue by issuing details show cause notice dated 20.11.2018. In the said show cause notice, the ld. AO required details of capital gain with computation and deduction

THE AMRAVATI PEOPLE CO-OP BANK LTD ( NOW MERGED IN THE COSMOS CO-OP BANK LTD),AMARAVATI vs. D.C.I.T. AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMARAVATI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

reassessment proceedings vide para No. 10 of the assessment order, wherein, he clearly held that there was no loss available for A.Y. 2002-03 which was assessed u/s. 143(3) of the Act determining Nil income after allowing deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S SUNFLAG IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos. 268 & 269/Nag/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Nagpur. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. 33, Mount Road, Sadar, Nagpur-440 001 Pan : Aaccs3376C ……""यथ" / Respondent

deduction u/s.80IA of the Act for year under consideration. 6. Before us, the revenue is aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) for two fold reasons, viz. (i) that the CIT(Appeals) loosing sight of the fact that the reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S SUNFLAG IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos. 268 & 269/Nag/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Nagpur. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. 33, Mount Road, Sadar, Nagpur-440 001 Pan : Aaccs3376C ……""यथ" / Respondent

deduction u/s.80IA of the Act for year under consideration. 6. Before us, the revenue is aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) for two fold reasons, viz. (i) that the CIT(Appeals) loosing sight of the fact that the reassessment

JAGDISHPRASAD MAHESHWARI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.748/Nag/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jagdishprasad Maheshwari Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-4, C/O Surgical India, Nagpur Shop No. 214,215,224,225, Sandesh Dawa Bazar, Near Haj House, Ganjipeth, Nagpur-440018, Maharashtra Pan: Acypm9289M Appellant Respondent

reassessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer 3 Jagdishprasad Maheshwari observed that in the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 that on verification of the scrutiny assessment record, it has been found that assessee made interest payment of Rs.1,80,615/- to various persons without deducting

NEELAM JANARDHAN RACHALWAR,CHIMUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryneelam Janardhan Ito, Ward-2, Chandrapur Rachalwar, Sai Mandir Road, Tilak Ward, Chimur, Vs. Chandrapur, Maharashtra Pan: Adqpr 7539 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

deducting from the words used by Parliament, it is clear that upon the formation of a reason to believe under section 147 and following the issuance of a notice under section 148, the Assessing Officer has the power to assess or reassess

ASHOKKUMAR GOKULCHAND SANANDA,BULDHANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royashokkumar Gokulchand Acit, Akola Circle, Akola Sananda, Rana Traders, Vs Gandhi Chowk, Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhan, Khamgaon Pan : Adpps 755I L Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2026

Reassessment was framed without providing reasons recorded along with notice u/s. 148, which is not in accordance with law. He submitted ground-wise gist and reliance have been placed which are as follows:- 1. Ground No.6 to 8: Addition made by A.O. by disallowance of deduction

M/S D.P.JAIN UJJAIN PACKAGE (ANNUITY ROAD PROJECTS) PVT .LTD,NAGPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL CIT (CENTRAL) , NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

deduction allowed under section 80 HHC of the Income-tax Act as well as the loss computed under the assessment dated 29-12-2000 would attain finality. In such a case, the A.O. while passing the independent assessment order under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the IT. Act could not have disturbed the assessment/ reassessment

DP JAIN DATIA BHANDER TOLL ROAD PROJECTS PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

deduction allowed under section 80 HHC of the Income-tax Act as well as the loss computed under the assessment dated 29-12-2000 would attain finality. In such a case, the A.O. while passing the independent assessment order under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the IT. Act could not have disturbed the assessment/ reassessment

DP JAIN DARIAPUR JASONDHI (ANNUITY) ROAD PROJECT PVT. LTD.,NAPGUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

deduction allowed under section 80 HHC of the Income-tax Act as well as the loss computed under the assessment dated 29-12-2000 would attain finality. In such a case, the A.O. while passing the independent assessment order under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the IT. Act could not have disturbed the assessment/ reassessment

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

deducted on such interest expenses claimed; it had already been accepted in scrutiny assessment completed u/s143(3) dt.18-8-16; more so, the alleged sum had already been repaid on 4-10-18 prior to the search conducted on 11-7-19; the addition of Rs.3,99,600 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 6. The assessee is engaged

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

deducted on such interest expenses claimed; it had already been accepted in scrutiny assessment completed u/s143(3) dt.18-8-16; more so, the alleged sum had already been repaid on 4-10-18 prior to the search conducted on 11-7-19; the addition of Rs.3,99,600 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 6. The assessee is engaged