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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. AAKAR HOTELS, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

2,67,14,897/- as Long Term Capital Gains." 10. It is clear that the partners are the legal and beneficial owners of the lease hold land and the assignment was made only in their personal capacity. Since the lease hold right belongs to the partners in the individual capacity therefore in no way the firm can be considered

VIKAS GUPTA ,INDORE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

13,00,000 2 paragraph Total 23,00,000 4 Vikas Gupta ITA no.186/Nag./2024 7. Finally, the learned CIT(A), considering the submissions of the assessee, quashed the assessment order by directing the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment by considering the specific issues and make necessary enquiries to ascertain the income of the assessee. The findings

SHRI AJAYSINGH GAJANANSINGH GOUR,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GONDIA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

sections 147 and 148 of the Act. 13. Though no specific notice was required u/s 143(2) of the Act, as noted above, the questionnaire dated November 11, 2003 and January 21, 2004, provided the assessee specific opportunity to support his return by seeking documentary evidence and details in regard to the following query:– “As per the return, interest

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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

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

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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

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

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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

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

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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

GORAKSHAN SABHA, NAGPUR,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MOF, GOI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92 & 91/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Gorakshan Sabha, The Income Tax Officer, Near Hitawada Press, V Ward Exemption, Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, S Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aaatg2927L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Common Intimation Of Outstanding Demand Order For A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Facts Of Both Appeals Are Similar, We Take Up Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 As

13-14 (A.Y. 2014-15) u/s 200A r.w.s. 234E, of the IT Act,1961 without appreciating the law and facts of the case.(ii)That the provi. for levy late fee u/s 200A(l)(c) r.w.s. 234E was introduced vide F.A. 2015 w.e.f. 01/06/2015, as such the order u/s 200A is illegal and without jurisdiction.(iii)That in absence

GORAKSHAN SABHA, NAGPUR,WARDHA ROAD, NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MOF,GOI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92 & 91/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Gorakshan Sabha, The Income Tax Officer, Near Hitawada Press, V Ward Exemption, Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, S Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aaatg2927L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Common Intimation Of Outstanding Demand Order For A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Facts Of Both Appeals Are Similar, We Take Up Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 As

13-14 (A.Y. 2014-15) u/s 200A r.w.s. 234E, of the IT Act,1961 without appreciating the law and facts of the case.(ii)That the provi. for levy late fee u/s 200A(l)(c) r.w.s. 234E was introduced vide F.A. 2015 w.e.f. 01/06/2015, as such the order u/s 200A is illegal and without jurisdiction.(iii)That in absence

BHAVESH SURESH SEJPAL,AKOT vs. ITO WARD-3, AKOLA

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

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

reassessment proceeding. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Whether Learned Assessing Officer is right in invoking the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) introduced by the FA-2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2024 even though the same was not there in the statue book as on the date of execution of the REGISTERED agreement to sale

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

13 shall be considered the date of search; and thus, it is submitted by the learned A.R. that the assessment year 2009-10 to 2012-13 would be beyond the block of 10 assessment years as per Explanation-1 to section 153A of the Act. Notice issued under section 153C and assessment made under section 153C for the assessment year

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

13 shall be considered the date of search; and thus, it is submitted by the learned A.R. that the assessment year 2009-10 to 2012-13 would be beyond the block of 10 assessment years as per Explanation-1 to section 153A of the Act. Notice issued under section 153C and assessment made under section 153C for the assessment year