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

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to h his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148.” 8. We have considered facts of the case

M/S SPACEWOOD FURNISHERS PVT. LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. D.C.I.T. CENTRALCIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dcit T-48, Midc, Hinga, Central Circle 1(3) Nagpur Nagpur Pan No.: Aaccs 4955 R Appellant Respondent

reassessment referred to in sub-section (2) of sec.153-A till the date of receipt of the order setting aside of such annulment, by the Commissioner.” 10. The proceedings u/s.132(1) were annulled by the High Court on 09.12.2011 and the said annulment was set aside by Hon‟ble Supreme Court on 13.05.2015. Thus the time between

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. ATUL YAMSANWAR , NAGPUR

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred..... except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.” 20. The emphasis supplied in the above excerpt of section 153D above, is to highlight the intent of the legislature regarding the necessity of application of mind to the draft

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all\nthe appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing\nOfficer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment\nyear referred..... except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.”\n20.\nThe emphasis supplied in the above excerpt of section 153D above, is to\nhighlight the intent of the legislature regarding the necessity of application of\nmind to the draft

UMESH SADASHIV THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing\nOfficer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment\nyear referred..... except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner.”\n20. The emphasis supplied in the above excerpt of section 153D above, is to\nhighlight the intent of the legislature regarding the necessity of application of\nmind to the draft

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. ATUL YAMSANWAR , NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all\nthe appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment order in search cases, then, it is the duty\nof the Jt.CIT to exercise such powers by applying his judicious mind. We are\nof the view that the obligation of the approval of the Approving Authority is\nof 2 folds; on one hand, he has to apply his mind to secure in build for the\nDepartment against any omission

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. ATUL YAMSANWAR , NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all\nthe appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment order in search cases, then, it is the duty\nof the Jt.CIT to exercise such powers by applying his judicious mind. We are\n60\nUmesh Sadashiv Thakre\nΑ.Υ. 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19,\n2019-20 & 2020-21\nof the view that the obligation of the approval of the Approving Authority is\nof 2 folds; on one hand

YRCE EDUCATE PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

reassessment order in search cases, then, it is the duty\nof the Jt.CIT to exercise such powers by applying his judicious mind. We are\nof the view that the obligation of the approval of the Approving Authority is\nof 2 folds; on one hand, he has to apply his mind to secure in build for the\nDepartment against any omission

UMESH SADASHIV THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all\nthe appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment order in search cases, then, it is the duty\nof the Jt.CIT to exercise such powers by applying his judicious mind. We are\n60\nUmesh Sadashiv Thakre Α.Υ. 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21\nof the view that the obligation of the approval of the Approving Authority is\nof 2 folds; on one hand

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

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

195, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting addition made on account of share application money when substantial evidence was produced by the assessee to establish the identity of share applicant. 6. (2010) 325 ITR 0025 (P&H HC) Commissioner of Income Tax –Vs.- GP International Ltd. AO having not doubted the identity

AXYKNO CAPITAL SERVICES LTD,,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, NAGPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

reassessment of proceedings and instead what is required is some tangible material which suggest escapement of income. The information received from investigating wing constitutes a fresh material which is sufficient to form a basis for escapement of income. Therefore, we are of the considered view that reopening as done by the AO is legally tenable and accordingly dismiss the ground

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

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

Reassessment-Validity-Reopening on the basis of third Party‘s statement-Appellant showing agriculture income-Deposition by A that he was involved in bogus transaction with the appellant and provided ‗accommodation entries‘ in the form of agriculture receipts-Same would constitute reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment-However, it was mandatory for the Revenue

VGI MARKETING DIVISION,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, AKOLA

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

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

195(SC). Further, the PCIT pointed out that the assessment officer had to examine each and every transaction and finally assess the correct income of the assessee. However, the assessing officer without arriving at any logical conclusion and without conducting any inquiry made a disallowance only to the extent of 3% of the bogus purchase. With regard to the aspect

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

195 To 197 of Paper book. The investments made in shares were also accepted by the assessing officer during the previous year relevant to Asstt. Year 2013-2014 in the scrutiny proceedings U/s. 143(3). The assessee encloses herewith copy of assessment order which is on Page- 169 To 174 of the Paper Book. The learned assessing officer has relied

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 TDS and further on verification of scrutiny assessment record, assessee has claimed expenses of purchase of gold jewellery