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

92, detailed explanations reconciling difference in sale consideration as reported by the assessee in the return of income and in Form 26QB are furnished. The Assessing Officer, after verification of claim of the assessee, has accepted the capital gain as shown in the return of income. It is evident that enquiry has been made in respect to capital gain declared

VAISHNAV YASHWANT ASHTANKAR,NAGPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - NAGPUR 2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

92,560. The assessment was originally framed and the case was re–opened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). Notice was issued under section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has purchased immovable property for a consideration of ` 1,19,79,000. Thereafter, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued notice under

ABID MUSTAFA KHAN,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleabid Mustafa Khan, 301, Mayfair Residency, Raj Nagar Opp. Green Park, Nagpur 440 013, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Aqipk9595G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(2), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri K.K. Thakkar. A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

92,20,000/-whereas the addition made is only ₹46,95,000/-. The inconsistency renders the reassessment proceedings untenable and arbitrary. 04. The learned Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in issuing the notice under section

SUMIT PRAKASHRAO FULZELE,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2 , CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

Section 68 will not be applicable, yet cash deposit in bank should be explained by assessee u/s 69/69B - unless any clinching evidence, shows nature and source of money deposited in the bank account, same should be added as his unexplained income - yes 5. Praveen Garg vs. ITO 132 taxmann.com 142 (Delhi-ITAT) (2021) - Appellant failed to explain the source

BHAVESH SURESH SEJPAL,AKOT vs. ITO WARD-3, AKOLA

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

reassessment proceeding. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Whether Learned Assessing Officer is right in invoking the provision of section 56(2)(vii)(b) introduced by the FA-2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2024 even though the same was not there in the statue book as on the date of execution of the REGISTERED agreement to sale

M/S. LEBEN LABORATORIES PVT. LTD.,,AKOLA vs. ACIT, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA, AKOLA

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

92,320/-. Thereafter, the assessment for assessment year 2003-04 was reopened and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 28-03-2008. In reassessment proceedings the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 80IB of the Act in respect of Unit Nos. III, IV and V were denied. Aggrieved against the assessment order dated 26-12-2008 passed

A.C.I.T ,AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA vs. M/S LEBEN LABORATORIES PVT..LTD,, AKOLA

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

92,320/-. Thereafter, the assessment for assessment year 2003-04 was reopened and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 28-03-2008. In reassessment proceedings the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 80IB of the Act in respect of Unit Nos. III, IV and V were denied. Aggrieved against the assessment order dated 26-12-2008 passed

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

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LTD., NAGPUR

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

92,65,265/- Item no. 19 of annexure A-2 of the seized documents Declaration of Declaration offered by the assessee u/s. Rs.10,00,000/- 132(4) of the 1. T. Act was based on the seized incriminating material. 502/Nag/2014 2006-07 Share Premium The assessment order discusses the seized Rs.43,50,000/- documents on this issue at paras

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LTD., NAGPUR

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

92,65,265/- Item no. 19 of annexure A-2 of the seized documents Declaration of Declaration offered by the assessee u/s. Rs.10,00,000/- 132(4) of the 1. T. Act was based on the seized incriminating material. 502/Nag/2014 2006-07 Share Premium The assessment order discusses the seized Rs.43,50,000/- documents on this issue at paras

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LTD., NAGPUR

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

92,65,265/- Item no. 19 of annexure A-2 of the seized documents Declaration of Declaration offered by the assessee u/s. Rs.10,00,000/- 132(4) of the 1. T. Act was based on the seized incriminating material. 502/Nag/2014 2006-07 Share Premium The assessment order discusses the seized Rs.43,50,000/- documents on this issue at paras

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LTD., NAGPUR

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

92,65,265/- Item no. 19 of annexure A-2 of the seized documents Declaration of Declaration offered by the assessee u/s. Rs.10,00,000/- 132(4) of the 1. T. Act was based on the seized incriminating material. 502/Nag/2014 2006-07 Share Premium The assessment order discusses the seized Rs.43,50,000/- documents on this issue at paras

DAYAL COTSPIN LIMITED,AKOLA vs. ACIT, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings. It is settled proposition of law that reasons recorded for verification of transaction are not in accordance with law. H) Reasons recorded does not indicate any date, year of transaction and link of assessee with statement of Shri Shirish Shah and thus it is no valid reasons for issue of notice u/s 148 in the case of assessee