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

234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is\nimproper.\n(5) That for any other grounds with kind permission of your honour at the\ntime of hearing of appeal.”\nGround no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is\nrequired.\nGrounds no.2 & 3, relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer\non account

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is improper. (5) That for any other grounds with kind permission of your honour at the time of hearing of appeal.” Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is required. Grounds no.2 & 3, relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission

SIMA RAVISINGH KACHHAWAH,UMRER vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadalesima Ravisingh Kachhawah, Girad Road, Om Nagar Umrer, ……………. Appellant Nagpur- 441203 Maharastra, Pan – Aqmpk2899K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

reassessment order passed pursuant to such reopening was also invalid, unjustified, and bad in law. The Tribunal quashed the reopening proceedings as well as the assessment order, observing that once the reopening is held to be void, the resulting assessment cannot survive b) The Honorable Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in the case of GandhibagSahkari Bank Ltd Vs DCIT

ABDUL ASIF ABDUL KADIR ABDUL,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD-1,AKOLA, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassessment framed is liable to be cancelled. 5. The addition made by A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs.1,72,06,081/- u/s 69A and tax levied u/s 115BBE of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unsustainable and unwarranted. 6. The addition made by A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) at Rs.172.06 lacs being deposits in bank account without considering

BHAWANA HARIRAM LAVHALE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

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

234A, 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 13. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 5. Facts in brief:- The appellant is an individual and has not filed return of income for assessment year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer had information on Insight Portal that the assessee has made

BHAWANA HARIRAM LAVHALE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

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

234A, 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 13. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 5. Facts in brief:- The appellant is an individual and has not filed return of income for assessment year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer had information on Insight Portal that the assessee has made

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is\nimproper.\n(5) That for any other grounds with kind permission of your honour at the\ntime of hearing of appeal.”\n3.\nGround no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is\nrequired.\n4.\nGrounds no.2 & 3, relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer

DAYAL COTSPIN LIMITED,AKOLA vs. ACIT, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 11. 3. Facts in Brief:- In this case, the assessee, for the year under consideration, filed its return of income on 29/09/2012, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer during the regular assessment framed under

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 69.\nFurther, we may point out that section 68 under which the addition has\nbeen made by the Assessing Officer reads as under:\n\"68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee\nmaintained for any previous year. and the assessee offers no\nexplanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation\noffered

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

section 69.\nFurther, we may point out that section 68 under which the addition has\nbeen made by the Assessing Officer reads as under:\n\"68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee\nmaintained for any previous year. and the assessee offers no\nexplanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation\noffered

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

section 69.\nFurther, we may point out that section 68 under which the addition has\nbeen made by the Assessing Officer reads as under:\n\"68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee\nmaintained for any previous year. and the assessee offers no\nexplanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation\noffered

DATTU SAMPAT VANKHEDE,NAGPUR vs. PCIT-2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which confers power on the CIT to revise an assessment order not on the recommendation of the AO and all the issues of sale of two Agriculture land exempted transaction were discussed and considered at the time of reassessment u/S 147 on the basis of initially formed the reason to believe