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

3) r.w.s. 153A of the I.T. Act. 1961 2014-15 (MILIND V. PATIL) Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Central Range-2, Nagpur 19. We Further find that exactly similar approval under section 153D of the Act have been granted by the Department for all the remaining 20 cases which are under consideration before us, but the only changes are made

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

3) r.w.s. 153A of the I.T. Act. 1961 2014-15 nulatu (MILIND V. PATIL) Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Central Range-2, Nagpur 19. We Further find that exactly similar approval under section 153D of the Act have been granted by the Department for all the remaining 20 cases which are under consideration before us, but the only changes

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

3) r.w.s. 153A of the I.T. Act. 1961 2014-15 nulatu (MILIND V. PATIL) Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Central Range-2, Nagpur 16 Umesh Sadashiv Thakre Α.Υ. 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 19. We Further find that exactly similar approval under section 153D of the Act have been granted by the Department

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

3, 4 5/Nag/2023 (i) save as otherwise provided in this section, Section 153-8 and Section 153-C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment

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

3, 4 5/Nag/2023 (i) save as otherwise provided in this section, Section 153-8 and Section 153-C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment

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

3, 4 5/Nag/2023 (i) save as otherwise provided in this section, Section 153-8 and Section 153-C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment

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

3, 4 5/Nag/2023 (i) save as otherwise provided in this section, Section 153-8 and Section 153-C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment

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

3, 4 5/Nag/2023 (i) save as otherwise provided in this section, Section 153-8 and Section 153-C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment

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

3, 4 5/Nag/2023 (i) save as otherwise provided in this section, Section 153-8 and Section 153-C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment

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

3) r.w.s. 153A of the I.T. Act. 1961 2014-15\nPAN: ΑΑΕPY4543Q nulatu (MILIND V. PATIL) Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax Central Range-2, Nagpur\n16\nUmesh Sadashiv Thakre Α.Υ. 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21\n19. We Further find that exactly similar approval under section 153D of the Act have been granted

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

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

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

3) r.w.s. 153A of the\nI.T. Act. 1961\nmulatu\n(MILIND V. PATIL)\nAddl. Commissioner of Income-tax\nCentral Range-2, Nagpur\n16\nUmesh Sadashiv Thakre Α.Υ. 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21\n19.\nWe Further find that exactly similar approval under section 153D of the Act have been granted by the Department

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all\nthe appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

3) r.w.s. 153A of the\nI.T. Act. 1961\nA.Υ.\n2014-15\nnulatu (MILIND V. PATIL)\nAddl. Commissioner of Income-tax\nCentral Range-2, Nagpur\n16\nUmesh Sadashiv Thakre Α.Υ. 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21\n19. We Further find that exactly similar approval under section 153D of the Act have been granted

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

3. Whether where jurisdiction under section 263 was sought to be exercised with reference to issues which were not subject of reopening of assessment, period of limitation provided in section 263(2) would commence from date of order of assessment u/s 143(1) and not from date on which order of reassessment

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

3. Whether where jurisdiction under section 263 was sought to be exercised with reference to issues which were not subject of reopening of assessment, period of limitation provided in section 263(2) would commence from date of order of assessment u/s 143(1) and not from date on which order of reassessment

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 68 of the Act. For such arguments, the learned A.R. relied on the following case laws:–  CIT v/s Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (2008) 183 taxmann.com 277 (Del.); and  Ravindra Arunachala Nadar v/s ACIT (2021) 129 taxmann.com 275 (Chen-Trib). 18. Further, it is submitted that similarly, addition of ` 3,99,600 on account of interest on such unsecured

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 68 of the Act. For such arguments, the learned A.R. relied on the following case laws:–  CIT v/s Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (2008) 183 taxmann.com 277 (Del.); and  Ravindra Arunachala Nadar v/s ACIT (2021) 129 taxmann.com 275 (Chen-Trib). 18. Further, it is submitted that similarly, addition of ` 3,99,600 on account of interest on such unsecured

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 68 of the Act. For such arguments, the learned A.R. relied on the following case laws:–  CIT v/s Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (2008) 183 taxmann.com 277 (Del.); and  Ravindra Arunachala Nadar v/s ACIT (2021) 129 taxmann.com 275 (Chen-Trib). 18. Further, it is submitted that similarly, addition of ` 3,99,600 on account of interest on such unsecured