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

145 failing to appreciate that by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.10.2014 the amendment in section 142A enunciates that the AO may make a reference to the valuation Officer whether or not he is satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the account of the assessee 3. 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

145 failing to appreciate that by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.10.2014 the amendment in section 142A enunciates that the AO may make a reference to the valuation Officer whether or not he is satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the account of the assessee 3. 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

145 failing to appreciate that by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.10.2014 the amendment in section 142A enunciates that the AO may make a reference to the valuation Officer whether or not he is satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the account of the assessee 3. 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

145 failing to appreciate that by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.10.2014 the amendment in section 142A enunciates that the AO may make a reference to the valuation Officer whether or not he is satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the account of the assessee 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

3. Whether where jurisdiction under section 263 was sought to be exercised with reference to issues which were not subject of reopening of assessment, period of limitation provided in section 263(2) would commence from date of order of assessment u/s 143(1) and not from date on which order of reassessment u/s 147 had been passed. 4. Whether

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

3. Whether where jurisdiction under section 263 was sought to be exercised with reference to issues which were not subject of reopening of assessment, period of limitation provided in section 263(2) would commence from date of order of assessment u/s 143(1) and not from date on which order of reassessment u/s 147 had been passed. 4. Whether

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

S. R. TECHNICAL SERVICES,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.42/Nag/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 S R Technical Services, The Principal C/O. K N D & Associates, Vs Commissioner Of 502-503, Satyam Apartment, Income Tax, Dhantoli, Wardha Road, Nagpur – 2. Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Abmfs6131K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2023

reassess the income of the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved the assessee prefer this appeal on the following amongst other grounds. 1) The order passed by Hon’ble PCIT. is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble PCIT erred in overlooking the explicit finding

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

145 taxmann.com 618 (Cal.); iv) Pato Builders Ltd. v/s DCIT [2024] ITL 1042 (Ranchi) ITA no. 73/Ran./2021, order dated 29/02/2024; and v) Tirupati Buildcon Pvt.Ltd.v/s ACIT, ITA no.74/Jab./2024, order dated 28/06/2024 (Jabalpur–Trib.). 9. The learned Counsel for the assessee precisely raised the undernoted contentions in his meticulous arguments which are summarised below:– ―A) Order

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

145 taxmann.com 618 (Calcutta) PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. (P-19-24) (24) [Vol.-1] v) (2007) 295 ITR 0282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd (P-61-63)[Vol.-I] vi) (2023) 151 taxmann.com 493 (Surat-Trib.) BhikhabhaiRajabhaiDhameliya vs. PCIT (P-41-51) (41, 48, 51) [Vol.-I] vii) ITAT order in ITANo.74/Jab/2024 in the case of TirupatiBuildcon Private

CHANDRAKUMAR MADHUSUDANJI JAJODIA,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment is general in nature and is not on specific transaction of assessee. Evidence placed on record is not found to be incorrect or false. Conclusion of escapement of income tantamount to mere change of opinion. Belief of escapement of income could not be derived on the basis of report of Investigation Wing being not specific to transaction of loan