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

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

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

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

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

M/S SPACEWOOD FURNISHERS PVT. LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. D.C.I.T. CENTRALCIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dcit T-48, Midc, Hinga, Central Circle 1(3) Nagpur Nagpur Pan No.: Aaccs 4955 R Appellant Respondent

reassessment referred to in sub-section (2) of sec.153-A till the date of receipt of the order setting aside of such annulment, by the Commissioner.” 10. The proceedings u/s.132(1) were annulled by the High Court on 09.12.2011 and the said annulment was set aside by Hon‟ble Supreme Court on 13.05.2015. Thus the time between

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

section 263, it was a severe Covid-19 pandemic. The assessee is a retired government employee and senior citizen and was suffering from various old age related medical issues. The Hon’ble Apex Court has extended the time period for taking recourse of law by ordinary citizen up to 28.02.2022 and Fattesing Punaji Dhabre further 90 days grace period

M/S NEW VIRAJ HOUSING AGENCY,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the three years is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

90,91,140/- for AY 2011-12 and Rs 1,12,27,727/- for AY 2012-13. Aggrieved with the said decision the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. During the proceedings before the first appellate authority, the Ld. counsel for the assessee contended that only survey action u/s 133A was carried out at the aforesaid

THE AMRAVATI PEOPLE CO-OP BANK LTD ( NOW MERGED IN THE COSMOS CO-OP BANK LTD),AMARAVATI vs. D.C.I.T. AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMARAVATI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 309/Nag/2015 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Amravati Peoples Co-Op. Bank Limited (Now Merged In The Cosmos Co-Op. Bank Ltd.) C/O. Cosmos Co-Op Bank Ltd. Jawahar Road, Amravati-444601. Pan : Aaact5899B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Amravati Circle, Amravati. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.G. Gandhi, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Agnes P. Thomas, Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09.05.2022

90 (Born.) ] 2. Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) erred in not taking a cognizance of assessee's request for a supply a copy of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax's approval which was required to establish that the approval was granted in "mechanical manner" and such approval

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

90% of property. In the course of revision proceedingsconclusion of PCIT at para 7 that there is lack of enquiry is not correct. H)Before PCIT written submission was made along with documentary evidence (P-15-18). Copy of purchase deed, sale deed and other documentary evidence was placed on record to explain entire issues raised in the notice

ALFIYA AYAZALI SAYYAD,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

90 days, he stated that there was delay due to COVID–19 pandemic situation. 4. Having heard the learned Departmental Representative and having gone through the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee, we are of the opinion that, for the reason stated in the affidavit, the assessee is prevented by filing the present appeal belatedly and hence

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR vs. YRCE EDUCATE PVT. LTD, NAGPUR

90% of the addition made by Assessing Officer stating\nthat the Assessing Officer himself concluded that the entries in the impugned\ndocuments did not belong to the assessee and that the additions have been\nmade in cases of other parties. However, 10% of the transaction, aggregating\nto ₹ 19,577, was treated by the learned CIT(A) as income

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

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

90% of the addition made by Assessing Officer stating that the Assessing Officer himself concluded that the entries in the impugned documents did not belong to the assessee and that the additions have been made in cases of other parties. However, 10% of the transaction, aggregating to ₹ 19,577, was treated by the learned CIT(A) as income

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

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

90% of the addition made by Assessing Officer stating that the Assessing Officer himself concluded that the entries in the impugned documents did not belong to the assessee and that the additions have been made in cases of other parties. However, 10% of the transaction, aggregating to ₹ 19,577, was treated by the learned CIT(A) as income

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

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

90% of the addition made by Assessing Officer stating that the Assessing Officer himself concluded that the entries in the impugned documents did not belong to the assessee and that the additions have been made in cases of other parties. However, 10% of the transaction, aggregating to ₹ 19,577, was treated by the learned CIT(A) as income

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

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

90% of the addition made by Assessing Officer stating that the Assessing Officer himself concluded that the entries in the impugned documents did not belong to the assessee and that the additions have been made in cases of other parties. However, 10% of the transaction, aggregating to ₹ 19,577, was treated by the learned CIT(A) as income

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

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

90% of the addition made by Assessing Officer stating that the Assessing Officer himself concluded that the entries in the impugned documents did not belong to the assessee and that the additions have been made in cases of other parties. However, 10% of the transaction, aggregating to ₹ 19,577, was treated by the learned CIT(A) as income