CITY LAND ASSOCIATES,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

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

2 to Section 263 of the Income Tax Act find favour in the various court decisions, which are enumerated below:- 6.6 The Hon'ble Apex Court, in The Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (243 ITR 83) had on the scope of proceedings u/s263 observed as under: "There can be no doubt that the provision cannot be invoked to correct

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment, make a reference to a Valuation Officer to estimate the value, including fair market value, of any asset, property or investment and submit a copy of report to him.‖ 17. Thus no reference to Valuation Officer by Assessing Officer. It is worthwhile to note that in order under section 155(15) of the Act, the 18 SushilaBhauraoDeshmukh ITAno.76/Nag./2022

VINAY RAMSHARANDAS AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

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

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can't usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

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

reassess the total income for the entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment. As per the second proviso to Section 153A, only pending assessment/reassessment shall stand abated and the AO would assume the jurisdiction with respect to such abated assessments. It does not provide that all completed/unabated assessments shall abate. If the submission on behalf

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

263 (153A Investment based Assessment) on DVO Report Amount Rs. 8,20,24,434/- 4 26/NAG/2020 2014-15 Department 143(3) r.w.s. Abated 1.Sec.69C – 153A Dt. Investment based 22.12.2017 on DVO Report Amount Rs. 6,38,21,488/- 2. Section 68 – Rs. 6 crores total – Unsecured loans from (i) Anubhav Vinimay – Rs.2,00,00,000/- (ii) Blue View Trade

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

263 (153A Investment based Assessment) on DVO Report Amount Rs. 8,20,24,434/- 4 26/NAG/2020 2014-15 Department 143(3) r.w.s. Abated 1.Sec.69C – 153A Dt. Investment based 22.12.2017 on DVO Report Amount Rs. 6,38,21,488/- 2. Section 68 – Rs. 6 crores total – Unsecured loans from (i) Anubhav Vinimay – Rs.2,00,00,000/- (ii) Blue View Trade

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

263 (153A Investment based Assessment) on DVO Report Amount Rs. 8,20,24,434/- 4 26/NAG/2020 2014-15 Department 143(3) r.w.s. Abated 1.Sec.69C – 153A Dt. Investment based 22.12.2017 on DVO Report Amount Rs. 6,38,21,488/- 2. Section 68 – Rs. 6 crores total – Unsecured loans from (i) Anubhav Vinimay – Rs.2,00,00,000/- (ii) Blue View Trade

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

263 (153A Investment based Assessment) on DVO Report Amount Rs. 8,20,24,434/- 4 26/NAG/2020 2014-15 Department 143(3) r.w.s. Abated 1.Sec.69C – 153A Dt. Investment based 22.12.2017 on DVO Report Amount Rs. 6,38,21,488/- 2. Section 68 – Rs. 6 crores total – Unsecured loans from (i) Anubhav Vinimay – Rs.2,00,00,000/- (ii) Blue View Trade

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

263 (153A Investment based Assessment) on DVO Report Amount Rs. 8,20,24,434/- 4 26/NAG/2020 2014-15 Department 143(3) r.w.s. Abated 1.Sec.69C – 153A Dt. Investment based 22.12.2017 on DVO Report Amount Rs. 6,38,21,488/- 2. Section 68 – Rs. 6 crores total – Unsecured loans from (i) Anubhav Vinimay – Rs.2,00,00,000/- (ii) Blue View Trade

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

263 (153A Investment based Assessment) on DVO Report Amount Rs. 8,20,24,434/- 4 26/NAG/2020 2014-15 Department 143(3) r.w.s. Abated 1.Sec.69C – 153A Dt. Investment based 22.12.2017 on DVO Report Amount Rs. 6,38,21,488/- 2. Section 68 – Rs. 6 crores total – Unsecured loans from (i) Anubhav Vinimay – Rs.2,00,00,000/- (ii) Blue View Trade

FATTESING PUNAJI DHABRE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX – 2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

263 even when the assessment order sought to be revised was non–est in the eyes of laws in view of following that: a. Reassessment proceedings were initiated by order under section 148 by the assessing officer who had no territorial jurisdiction over the assessee and which is admitted fact. The Assessing Officer who has issued the notice under section

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

sections 151, 263, etc., are related to the judicial wing. In fact,\nthe statutory authority of the learned CIT(A) [section 2(16A)] and even this\nTribunal [section 252] exists, because the same are formed or defined for the\n“judicial wing” of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n21. In the present case, before we delve into the merits

SHRI AMJAD AHMED SHEIKH,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

263 of the Income Tax Act which is as under :- Explanation 2. For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner

NIRMALKUMAR AGRAWAL HUF,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHANDARA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

2(b) of section 263 of the Act and is required to be revised u/s 263 of the Act. Accordingly, in exercise of powers vested in me u/s 263 of the Act the above said reassessment

VAISHNAV YASHWANT ASHTANKAR,NAGPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - NAGPUR 2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings. The assessee's claim that the difference in market value and purchase consideration being 14.1% i.e. less than 15%, should be accepted as being nominal and relied upon case laws i) M/s LGW Limited Vs ITO Ward 2(3) ITA No. 267/Kol/2013 (2015) ii) M/s John Fowler (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income

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

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 ("the Act") by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, [“learned PCIT”], for the assessment year 2014–15. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. The order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-2 U/s 263 under the Income

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

2, as mentioned above, through which the assessee is challenging the validity of approval so granted by the Department under section 153D of the Act, claiming the same to have been passed without \"application of mind”.\n14.\nTo support his contention, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that on a bare perusal of the approval so granted