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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

80,937/- on account of unexplained cash deposits, by\nadmitting additional evidence under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin restricting the addition of Rs. 15,51,529/-on account of unrecorded\nreceipts to Rs. 15,400/- by admitting additional evidence under rule 46A of\nthe

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

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

80,874/- by making the following additions: a) Addition of Closing Balance of Proprietors Capital Account U/s. 68 of Income Tax Act amounting to Rs. 2,56,10,454/-." 4. Procedure in Appeal: The appellant filed submissions dated 20/02/2023 upon enablement of filing online response. 5. Reasons of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO): The facts of the case

SARDA ENERGY LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 149 of the Act for invocation of larger period was not invocable hence, reopening was impermissible and unsustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, it is earnestly requested that the appellate order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) affirming the reassessment order passed by the Ld.Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre ("the Ld.AO) may please be quashed & annulled on this

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 69.\nFurther, we may point out that section 68 under which the addition has\nbeen made by the Assessing Officer reads as under:\n\"68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee\nmaintained for any previous year. and the assessee offers no\nexplanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation\noffered