MISS FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. 2] Learned A.O. erred in holding that the assessee was the owner of the Maria Construction. Said Maria Construction was the Proprietory concern of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. The learned C.I.T.(A)-I has not accepted assessee's submission and confirm the finding of the A.O. 3] Learned A.O. erred in adding Cash Deposits

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. 2] Learned A.O. erred in holding that the assessee was the owner of the Maria Construction. Said Maria Construction was the Proprietory concern of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. The learned C.I.T.(A)-I has not accepted assessee's submission and confirm the finding of the A.O. 3] Learned A.O. erred in adding Cash Deposits

MISS FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. 2] Learned A.O. erred in holding that the assessee was the owner of the Maria Construction. Said Maria Construction was the Proprietory concern of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. The learned C.I.T.(A)-I has not accepted assessee's submission and confirm the finding of the A.O. 3] Learned A.O. erred in adding Cash Deposits

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

reassessment proceedings are bad in law. 2] Learned A.O. erred in holding that the assessee was the owner of the Maria Construction. Said Maria Construction was the Proprietory concern of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. The learned C.I.T.(A)-I has not accepted assessee's submission and confirm the finding of the A.O. 3] Learned A.O. erred in adding Cash Deposits

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

section 10(38) of the Act. 4. (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries –Vs- Commissioner Of Central Excise Not allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses by adjudicating authority though statements of those witnesses were made as basis of impugned order, amounted in serious flaw which make impugned order nullity as it amounted to violation of principles of natural

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

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

section 10(38) of the Act. 4. (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries -Vs- Commissioner Of Central Excise Not allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses by adjudicating authority though statements of those witnesses were made as basis of impugned order, amounted in serious flaw which make impugned order nullity as it amounted to violation of principles of natural

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.2, NAGPUR vs. SHRI GOVINDDAS GOVERDHAN DAGA, NAGPUR

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

reassessment framed is bad in law. D) The A.O. has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Acorus Unitech Wireless (P) Ltd. and it can be seen that in said decision objections filed were disposed by revenue authorities as is evident from para 3 of judgment. It is further seen from the reasons