SUNRISE STRUCTURALS & ENGINEERING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roysunrise Structural & Acit/Dcit, Circle-4, Engineering P. Ltd., A10, Vs Nagpur Hingna Midc, Nagpur (Urban), Nagpur-440016 Pan : Aaccs 3220 M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R

section 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 9) Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 5. The assessee submitted the following submissions along with the paper book for consideration. 3.1 Ground No.1: Notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 is not in accordance with law:- A) Notice u/s 148A

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

Section 153A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment which is not in the case of assessee. (4) On contrary

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 framed is liable to be cancelled. 2 Chandrakumar Madhusudanji Jajodia ITA no.399/Nag./2023 3. Assessment framed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of I.T. Act 1961 is bad in law in view of no notice u/s 143(2) of I.T. Act 1961 having been issued before framing assessment even though assessee has submitted return of income on 23/10/2018 in respect

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

Section 153A only on the basis of some\nincriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of\ndocuments or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of\nsearch which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in\nthe course of original assessment which is not in the case of assessee.\n(4) On contrary

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

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 section

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

4. Notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law and consequent 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

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

ASHOKKUMAR GOKULCHAND SANANDA,BULDHANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royashokkumar Gokulchand Acit, Akola Circle, Akola Sananda, Rana Traders, Vs Gandhi Chowk, Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhan, Khamgaon Pan : Adpps 755I L Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2026

4) The notice issued u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. Thus, reassessment framed thereupon is liable to be cancelled. 5) Reassessment framed without providing reasons recorded for issue of notice u/s 148 is not in accordance with law and contrary to decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

Section 153A only on the basis of some\nincriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of\ndocuments or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of\nsearch which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in\nthe course of original assessment which is not in the case of assessee.\n(4) On contrary

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

234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 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

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

234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 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

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

Section 153A only on the basis of some\nincriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of\ndocuments or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of\nsearch which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in\nthe course of original assessment which is not in the case of assessee.\n(4) On contrary

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

Section 153A only on the basis of some\nincriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of\ndocuments or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of\nsearch which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in\nthe course of original assessment which is not in the case of assessee.\n(4) On contrary

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

4. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-2 passed the order U/s. 263 without going into provisions of the law of reassessment U/s 147 and merits of the case, therefore the order passed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 5. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-2 passed the order U/s. 263 without jurisdiction and without going into provisions

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

Section 153A only on the basis of some\nincriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of\ndocuments or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of\nsearch which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in\nthe course of original assessment which is not in the case of assessee.\n(4) On contrary

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LTD., NAGPUR

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

234B of the Income Tax Act and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO. On the facts and circumstances of the case the interest charged is improper. (7) That for any other cross-objection with kind permission of Hon’ble Members at the time of hearing of cross objection.” Before the Tribunal 6. Before

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LTD., NAGPUR

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

234B of the Income Tax Act and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO. On the facts and circumstances of the case the interest charged is improper. (7) That for any other cross-objection with kind permission of Hon’ble Members at the time of hearing of cross objection.” Before the Tribunal 6. Before

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LTD., NAGPUR

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

234B of the Income Tax Act and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO. On the facts and circumstances of the case the interest charged is improper. (7) That for any other cross-objection with kind permission of Hon’ble Members at the time of hearing of cross objection.” Before the Tribunal 6. Before