DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

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

67,712/-. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of Rs. 8,75,36,654/-. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

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

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act. 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

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

67,712/-. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of Rs. 8,75,36,654/-. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account

A,C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.- 2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI DHARAMPAL R.AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

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

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act. 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

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

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to h his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148.” 8. We have considered facts of the case

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

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to h his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148.” 8. We have considered facts of the case

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

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

reassess the income of the third party in accordance with the procedure stipulated u/s153A. 78. In my considered view, there is a vital distinction between the object, intention as well as the express Judge of section 153A and 153C. Section 153A addresses the searched entity and the procedure set evidently a notch higher for this reason. There is no discretion

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

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

reassess the income of the third party in accordance with the procedure stipulated u/s153A. 78. In my considered view, there is a vital distinction between the object, intention as well as the express Judge of section 153A and 153C. Section 153A addresses the searched entity and the procedure set evidently a notch higher for this reason. There is no discretion

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

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

reassess the income of the third party in accordance with the procedure stipulated u/s153A. 78. In my considered view, there is a vital distinction between the object, intention as well as the express Judge of section 153A and 153C. Section 153A addresses the searched entity and the procedure set evidently a notch higher for this reason. There is no discretion

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

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

reassess the income of the third party in accordance with the procedure stipulated u/s153A. 78. In my considered view, there is a vital distinction between the object, intention as well as the express Judge of section 153A and 153C. Section 153A addresses the searched entity and the procedure set evidently a notch higher for this reason. There is no discretion

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

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

reassess the income of the third party in accordance with the procedure stipulated u/s153A. 78. In my considered view, there is a vital distinction between the object, intention as well as the express Judge of section 153A and 153C. Section 153A addresses the searched entity and the procedure set evidently a notch higher for this reason. There is no discretion

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

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

67,364, on account of difference under section 69C of the Act. 5. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made following submissions:– “The appellant submitted the written submission which is reproduced as under: Assessee is a Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, carrying on the business of Construction, trading, and services. It maintains regular books of accounts

RAMKRUSHNA ZILBAJI THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WRAD -4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment of income under provisions . of Section 147· read with S.143(2) of Ramkrishna Zimbaji Thakre for A.Y.2010-11 and in the matter of addition to income on account of cash deposits in bank accounts under section 68 which are jointly held along with spouse of the assessee and in the matter of rejecting the explanation that said deposits are made

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

67) [Vol.-1] ii) (2008) 296 ITR 0238 (P & H) CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills (P-68-72) (68, 71) [Vol.- I] iii) (2018) 103 CCH 0112 (Mum.HC) 11 Vinay Ramsharandas Agrawal ITA no.110/Nag./2023 CIT vs. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. (P-73-77) (77) [Vol.1] L) In the case of two co-owners for assessment of capital gain

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

section 69A of the Act being illegal, invalid and bad in law. 8. In grounds no.6 & 7, the assessee has challenged disallowance of interest at ` 1,99,520. 9. Before us the learned Counsel, Shri Kishore P. Dewani, Advocate, appearing for the assessee submitted that in the first appellate order, the learned CIT(A) did not considered and/or given

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

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

67,712/-. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of Rs. 8,75,36,654/-. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account

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

67. There is no recording of satisfaction by the Addl.CIT in the impugned approval order as to whether the assessment records/assessment folders/ files/seized materials or any incriminating documents or other connected documents and papers/ various statements recorded under section 132(4) and section 131(1A) of the assessee or any other person/ appraisal report of the Investigation Wing

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

67. There is no recording of satisfaction by the Addl.CIT in the impugned approval order as to whether the assessment records/assessment folders/ files/seized materials or any incriminating documents or other connected documents and papers/ various statements recorded under section 132(4) and section 131(1A) of the assessee or any other person/ appraisal report of the Investigation Wing