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

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

reassess taking into consideration the other material in\nrespect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in\nrespect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the\nAO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search\nunder Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act. 1961.\nHowever, 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

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

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

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

reassess taking into consideration the other material in\nrespect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in\nrespect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the\nAO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search\nunder Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act. 1961.\nHowever, 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

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

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

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

reassessment notice under section 148 and also erred in passing assessment order in consequence of invalid and illegal proceedings.” 3. Facts in brief, as extracted from the order of lower authorities are that assessee is individual and has not filed return of income for A.Y. 2011–12. The assessing officer received information that assessee has sold immovable property of `. 70

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

NEELAM JANARDHAN RACHALWAR,CHIMUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryneelam Janardhan Ito, Ward-2, Chandrapur Rachalwar, Sai Mandir Road, Tilak Ward, Chimur, Vs. Chandrapur, Maharashtra Pan: Adqpr 7539 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

70,00,000) shall not be treated as income from other sources and added to the income of the Assessee.” 10. The Assessee in response to the aforesaid show-cause notice, made no compliance. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. AO ultimately made the addition of Rs. 36,13,000/- being difference between the stamp duty value

VIJAY VINOD DURAGKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

70,97,750, under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act in the hands of Shri Vinod Durgukar, the husband of the assessee. Shri Durugkar, in response submitted that they have vide mutual agreement made additional payment of ` 53,16,327, to the vendors for the same property which also ought to be considered. The total payment thus 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

70,000/- and difference in sale consideration as per income tax return and the amount reported in Form 26QB during the course of assessment proceedings. viii.During the course of proceedings initiated under section 263 against the assessee, the assessee filed interest details before the PCIT. However assessee has failed to prove with evidence as to how the payments were made

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

reassessment order dated 24.03.2023 passed by AO u/s 147 read with 5 Nirmalkumar Agrawal (HUF) ITA no.242/Nag./2025 section 144B of the Act for A.Y. 2018-19 in the case of the assessee is set aside, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh Assessment Order denovo, after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. VINODKUMAR RAJENDRALAL KOCHHAR, KAMPTEE

In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed

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

70,420/-. Assessment u/s 143(3) of I.T. Act, 1961 was completed on 20.08.2018 by accepting the returned income. The assessee is proprietor of M/s Minor Forest Produce Export engaged in the business of export of forest produce. 2. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of substantial increase in Capital in a year. 3. Proprietor's Capital

VIKRAM AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

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

section 148. 6.2.4 In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-7 vs. Paramount Communication (P) Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi), it has been held that:- "Information regarding bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record' to initiate valid reassessment proceedings." 6.2.5 I have perused

VIKRAM AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4 (4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

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

section 148. 6.2.4 In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-7 vs. Paramount Communication (P) Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi), it has been held that:- "Information regarding bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record' to initiate valid reassessment proceedings." 6.2.5 I have perused

VIKRAM AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

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

section 148. 6.2.4 In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-7 vs. Paramount Communication (P) Ltd. [2017] 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi), it has been held that:- "Information regarding bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record' to initiate valid reassessment proceedings." 6.2.5 I have perused