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

House Property, Income from Business, Income from Capital Gains and Income from other sources & he had been regularly filing his return of income for the last 5 decades. (iii) During the captioned assessment year, the appellant had opted for computation of income U/s. 44AD in respect of his business activity and while filing online return of Income

VIJAY VINOD DURAGKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

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

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

house property”, “income from business & profession” and “income from other sources”. The case was re–opened and notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was issued on 20/03/2020. The assessee, while 3 Vijaya Vinod Duragkar responding to the notice under section 148 of the Act, vide her letter dated 30/03/2021, submitted that she having already

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

property discovered in the course of search which were\nnot produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original\nassessment.\"\n10.\nThus, on a plain reading of the propositions laid down by the Hon'ble\nHigh Courts cited supra, one can analyse that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High\nCourt concurs with the view

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

property discovered in the course of search which were\nnot produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original\nassessment.\"\n10. Thus, on a plain reading of the propositions laid down by the Hon'ble\nHigh Courts cited supra, one can analyse that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High\nCourt concurs with the view

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

property discovered in the course of search which were\nnot produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original\nassessment.\"\n10.\nThus, on a plain reading of the propositions laid down by the Hon'ble\nHigh Courts cited supra, one can analyse that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High\nCourt concurs with the view

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

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

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." 10. Thus, on a plain reading of the propositions laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited supra, one can analyse that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court concurs with the view

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

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." 10. Thus, on a plain reading of the propositions laid down by the Hon’ble High Courts cited supra, one can analyse that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court concurs with the view

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

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

property discovered in the course of search which were\nnot produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original\nassessment.\"\n10.\nThus, on a plain reading of the propositions laid down by the Hon'ble\nHigh Courts cited supra, one can analyse that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High\nCourt concurs with the view

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

house property, income from capital gain and income from other sources. The assessee, in response to the statutory notices issued by the 16 Vinay Ramsharandas Agrawal ITA no.110/Nag./2023 Assessing Officer, furnished all the details along with written submissions through online portal of the Department, as desired by the Assessing Officer. It is pertinent to note that during the course

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

house property, income from business and income from other sources. The assessee has also shown income from exempt capital gains from transfer of equity shares.\nThe assessee has purchased 422500 shares of Swift IT Infrastructure and Services Ltd. by cheque on 16/03/2012 during the previous year relevant to Asstt. Year 2013-2014 and the same were shown in the balance

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

house property, income from business and income from other sources. The assessee has also shown income from exempt capital gains from transfer of equity shares. 7 Shri Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani ITA no.410/Nag./2019 A.Y. 2014–15 The assessee has purchased 422500 shares of Swift IT Infrastructure and Services Ltd. by cheque on 16/03/2012 during the previous year relevant to Asstt

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET AX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI SANJAY GAURISHANKAR AGRAWAL , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

House Property”, “Income From Salary” and “Income From Other Sources”. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income under section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on 28/02/2014, declaring total income of ` 5,12,270, which was accepted vide intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and no notice under section

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. 2] Learned A.O. erred in holding that the assessee was the owner of the Maria Construction. Said Maria Construction was the Proprietory concern of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. The learned C.I.T.(A)-I has not accepted assessee's submission and confirm the finding of the A.O. 3] Learned A.O. erred in adding Cash Deposits

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. 2] Learned A.O. erred in holding that the assessee was the owner of the Maria Construction. Said Maria Construction was the Proprietory concern of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. The learned C.I.T.(A)-I has not accepted assessee's submission and confirm the finding of the A.O. 3] Learned A.O. erred in adding Cash Deposits

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. 2] Learned A.O. erred in holding that the assessee was the owner of the Maria Construction. Said Maria Construction was the Proprietory concern of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. The learned C.I.T.(A)-I has not accepted assessee's submission and confirm the finding of the A.O. 3] Learned A.O. erred in adding Cash Deposits

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. 2] Learned A.O. erred in holding that the assessee was the owner of the Maria Construction. Said Maria Construction was the Proprietory concern of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. The learned C.I.T.(A)-I has not accepted assessee's submission and confirm the finding of the A.O. 3] Learned A.O. erred in adding Cash Deposits

MISS FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. 2] Learned A.O. erred in holding that the assessee was the owner of the Maria Construction. Said Maria Construction was the Proprietory concern of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. The learned C.I.T.(A)-I has not accepted assessee's submission and confirm the finding of the A.O. 3] Learned A.O. erred in adding Cash Deposits

MISS FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. 2] Learned A.O. erred in holding that the assessee was the owner of the Maria Construction. Said Maria Construction was the Proprietory concern of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. The learned C.I.T.(A)-I has not accepted assessee's submission and confirm the finding of the A.O. 3] Learned A.O. erred in adding Cash Deposits