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

271 Cr. The work-in-progress (WIP) as on the date of search was at Rs 153.58 Cr. During the post search proceedings, the statement was recorded on 09.12.2014, wherein Mr. Rajesh Agarwal (partner), reply to (Q No. 29), stated that the average construction cost of the project is Rs 1200/- to Rs. 1500/- per sq.ft. without any supporting evidences

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

271 Cr. The work-in-progress (WIP) as on the date of search was at Rs 153.58 Cr. During the post search proceedings, the statement was recorded on 09.12.2014, wherein Mr. Rajesh Agarwal (partner), reply to (Q No. 29), stated that the average construction cost of the project is Rs 1200/- to Rs. 1500/- per sq.ft. without any supporting evidences

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

271 Cr. The work-in-progress (WIP) as on the date of search was at Rs 153.58 Cr. During the post search proceedings, the statement was recorded on 09.12.2014, wherein Mr. Rajesh Agarwal (partner), reply to (Q No. 29), stated that the average construction cost of the project is Rs 1200/- to Rs. 1500/- per sq.ft. without any supporting evidences

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

271 Cr. The work-in-progress (WIP) as on the date of search was at Rs 153.58 Cr. During the post search proceedings, the statement was recorded on 09.12.2014, wherein Mr. Rajesh Agarwal (partner), reply to (Q No. 29), stated that the average construction cost of the project is Rs 1200/- to Rs. 1500/- per sq.ft. without any supporting evidences

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

reassessment under section 153A [except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel] or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA; (bb) an order made under sub-section (3) of section 92CD; (c) an order made under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing

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

reassessment under section 153A [except an order passed in pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel] or an order referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA; (bb) an order made under sub-section (3) of section 92CD; (c) an order made under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing

ALFIYA AYAZALI SAYYAD,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceeding can be initiated as provided under section 147. This again shows that full and true disclosure of income is primary obligation of the assessee.” 10. We also find that the Assessing Officer has not doubted the sales, but only doubted the purchases and thus the addition made by him is not justified. In the first appellate order dated

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1)(c) Appeal A.Y. 2014–15 by Assessee Centre, Delhi We take up appeal in ITA no.498/Nag./2024, for the assessment year 2013–14, as the lead case, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. The Learned Commissioner of Appeals disposed of the appeal after the first hearing, without granting the assessee any further opportunity for a personal

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1)(c) Appeal A.Y. 2014–15 by Assessee Centre, Delhi We take up appeal in ITA no.498/Nag./2024, for the assessment year 2013–14, as the lead case, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. The Learned Commissioner of Appeals disposed of the appeal after the first hearing, without granting the assessee any further opportunity for a personal

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1)(c) Appeal A.Y. 2014–15 by Assessee Centre, Delhi We take up appeal in ITA no.498/Nag./2024, for the assessment year 2013–14, as the lead case, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. The Learned Commissioner of Appeals disposed of the appeal after the first hearing, without granting the assessee any further opportunity for a personal

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCITACIT CIRCLE-3 , NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1)(c) Appeal A.Y. 2014–15 by Assessee Centre, Delhi We take up appeal in ITA no.498/Nag./2024, for the assessment year 2013–14, as the lead case, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. The Learned Commissioner of Appeals disposed of the appeal after the first hearing, without granting the assessee any further opportunity for a personal

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, , NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1)(c) Appeal A.Y. 2014–15 by Assessee Centre, Delhi We take up appeal in ITA no.498/Nag./2024, for the assessment year 2013–14, as the lead case, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. The Learned Commissioner of Appeals disposed of the appeal after the first hearing, without granting the assessee any further opportunity for a personal

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1)(c) Appeal A.Y. 2014–15 by Assessee Centre, Delhi We take up appeal in ITA no.498/Nag./2024, for the assessment year 2013–14, as the lead case, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. The Learned Commissioner of Appeals disposed of the appeal after the first hearing, without granting the assessee any further opportunity for a personal

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

271(1)(c) Appeal A.Y. 2014–15 by Assessee Centre, Delhi We take up appeal in ITA no.498/Nag./2024, for the assessment year 2013–14, as the lead case, wherein the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. The Learned Commissioner of Appeals disposed of the appeal after the first hearing, without granting the assessee any further opportunity for a personal

SANT SHANKAR MAHARAJ AASHRAM,AMRAVATI vs. DCIT ACIT CIR-EXEMP, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

271, which included non- compliance issues. Let us discuss the new section along with the Memorandum explaining the clause and also the FM's speech to understand better. 4.3 Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. 270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during

DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR vs. SANT SHANKAR MAHARAJ AASHRAM, DHAMANGAON AMRAVATI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

271, which included non- compliance issues. Let us discuss the new section along with the Memorandum explaining the clause and also the FM's speech to understand better. 4.3 Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. 270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

reassessment is bad in law and the addition made in the assessment order is illegal as no incriminating document or unaccounted income was found during the course of search in the case of assessee. We would be submitting further while discussing the individual unds for addition made in the Assessment order. GROUND NO. 2; That the learned AO erred

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

reassessment is\nbad in law and the addition made in the assessment order is illegal as no\nincriminating document or unaccounted income was found during the course of\nsearch in the case of assessee.\nWe would be submitting further while discussing the individual unds for\naddition made in the Assessment order.\nGROUND NO. 2;\nThat the learned AO erred