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

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

1,65,07,560, the ACIT\nfailed to notice the error.\n12. This aspect was brought to the fore by the Tribunal in the impugned\norder. The Trib, thus, concluded there was a complete lack of application of\nmind, inasmuch as the ACIT, who granted approval, failed to notice the said\nerror.\n12.1. More particularly, the Tribunal notes that

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

1 SCC 248 and SL Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1980)\n4 SCC 379).\n30. As already noted above, the expression "civil consequences”\nencompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil\nliberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. Anything which\naffects a citizen in his civil life comes under its wide umbrella. Accordingly,\nwe reject the argument

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

1,65,07,560, the ACIT\nfailed to notice the error.\n12. This aspect was brought to the fore by the Tribunal in the impugned\norder. The Trib, thus, concluded there was a complete lack of application of\nmind, inasmuch as the ACIT, who granted approval, failed to notice the said\nerror.\n12.1. More particularly, the Tribunal notes that

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

1 SCC 248 and SL Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1980)\n4 SCC 379).\n30. As already noted above, the expression \"civil consequences”\nencompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil\nliberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. Anything which\naffects a citizen in his civil life comes under its wide umbrella. Accordingly,\nwe reject the argument

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

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

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

1. Shri Atul Manoharrao Yamsanwar, PAN: AAEPY4543Q U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the I.T. Act. 1961 2014-15 (MILIND V. PATIL) Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Central Range-2, Nagpur 19. We Further find that exactly similar approval under section 153D of the Act have been granted by the Department for all the remaining 20 cases which are under

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

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

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

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

1. Income Tax Return - 5 2. Tax Audit Report/ Audited Financial Statements 3. Ledger - Vani Enterprises 4. Purchase bills - Vani Enterprises 5. VAT Return 6. Sales bills 7. Judgment of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Batliboi Environmental Engineering Ltd 8. Judgment of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. S.V. Jiwani 9. Judgment of Principal Commissioner of Income