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

25 Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10 to 2013–14 documents to the Assessing Officer of the non–search person when there are two different Assessing Officers and it also must be a separate satisfaction note recorded for each year separately and further it is submitted by the learned A.R. that the separate satisfaction note must

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

25 Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10 to 2013–14 documents to the Assessing Officer of the non–search person when there are two different Assessing Officers and it also must be a separate satisfaction note recorded for each year separately and further it is submitted by the learned A.R. that the separate satisfaction note must

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

25 Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10 to 2013–14 documents to the Assessing Officer of the non–search person when there are two different Assessing Officers and it also must be a separate satisfaction note recorded for each year separately and further it is submitted by the learned A.R. that the separate satisfaction note must

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

25 Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10 to 2013–14 documents to the Assessing Officer of the non–search person when there are two different Assessing Officers and it also must be a separate satisfaction note recorded for each year separately and further it is submitted by the learned A.R. that the separate satisfaction note must

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

25 Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10 to 2013–14 documents to the Assessing Officer of the non–search person when there are two different Assessing Officers and it also must be a separate satisfaction note recorded for each year separately and further it is submitted by the learned A.R. that the separate satisfaction note must

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

10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in limiting the scope of section 153A only to undisclosed income when as per the section, the AO has to assess or re-assess the total income of the six assessment years? 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in limiting the scope of section 153A only to undisclosed income when as per the section, the AO has to assess or re-assess the total income of the six assessment years? 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in limiting the scope of section 153A only to undisclosed income when as per the section, the AO has to assess or re-assess the total income of the six assessment years? 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in limiting the scope of section 153A only to undisclosed income when as per the section, the AO has to assess or re-assess the total income of the six assessment years? 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in limiting the scope of section 153A only to undisclosed income when as per the section, the AO has to assess or re-assess the total income of the six assessment years? 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in limiting the scope of section 153A only to undisclosed income when as per the section, the AO has to assess or re-assess the total income of the six assessment years? 11. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act. 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

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 taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act. 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

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

iii. The whole assessment is based on suspicion and enquiry made by the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Kolkatta and on the basis of statement which were not confronted to the assessee; iv. The order of the assessing officer is arbitrary and without affording the reasonable opportunity to the assessee. There is violation of principles of natural justice

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

25 lakhs is received on 19th & 20th which can\nbe seen in the Bank Account of Omega Industries which paid by RTGS to Base\nCorporation Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs. Subsequently there is note that Rs.\n20 lakhs received on 24. The same can be seen as payment from the account\nof Omega Industries on 24th. Similarly

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

25 lakhs is received on 19th & 20th which can be seen in the Bank Account of Omega Industries which paid by RTGS to Base Corporation Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs. Subsequently there is note that Rs. 20 lakhs received on 24. The same can be seen as payment from the account of Omega Industries on 24th. Similarly

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

10. Further, the issues on which the order was revised by the learned Commissioner as per the impugned order passed under section 263 is reproduced as under:– "7 Accordingly, I hereby set aside the assessment u/s 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre

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

10. Further, the issues on which the order was revised by the learned Commissioner as per the impugned order passed under section 263 is reproduced as under:– "7 Accordingly, I hereby set aside the assessment u/s 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

25,000/- by admitting additional evidence\nunder rule 46A of the I.T. Rules.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the\nlearned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of\nunexplained credits of Rs.1,59,49,806/- as capital introduced, by admitting\nadditional evidence under rule