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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

133A was also carried out at the official premises of assessee M/s. SNJ & Associates at 1st Floor, Mangalam Icon, Ramnagar Square, Nagpur. During the course of survey, an Excel Sheet Annexure B-2 at Page no. 4 is found and impounded. The addition is made by AO based on such impounded document treating it as incriminating one. We object

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

133A was also carried out at the official premises of\nassessee M/s. SNJ & Associates at 1st Floor, Mangalam Icon, Ramnagar\nSquare, Nagpur. During the course of survey, an Excel Sheet Annexure B-2 at\nPage no. 4 is found and impounded. The addition is made by AO based on\nsuch impounded document treating it as incriminating one. We object

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

133A was also carried out at the official premises of\nassessee M/s. SNJ & Associates at 1st Floor, Mangalam Icon, Ramnagar\nSquare, Nagpur. During the course of survey, an Excel Sheet Annexure B-2 at\nPage no. 4 is found and impounded. The addition is made by AO based on\nsuch impounded document treating it as incriminating one. We object

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

133A was also carried out at the official premises of\nassessee M/s. SNJ & Associates at 1st Floor, Mangalam Icon, Ramnagar\nSquare, Nagpur. During the course of survey, an Excel Sheet Annexure B-2 at\nPage no. 4 is found and impounded. The addition is made by AO based on\nsuch impounded document treating it as incriminating one. We object

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

133A was also carried out at the official premises of\nassessee M/s. SNJ & Associates at 1st Floor, Mangalam Icon, Ramnagar\nSquare, Nagpur. During the course of survey, an Excel Sheet Annexure B-2 at\nPage no. 4 is found and impounded. The addition is made by AO based on\nsuch impounded document treating it as incriminating one. We object

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

133A was also carried out at the official premises of\nassessee M/s. SNJ & Associates at 1st Floor, Mangalam Icon, Ramnagar\nSquare, Nagpur. During the course of survey, an Excel Sheet Annexure B-2 at\nPage no. 4 is found and impounded. The addition is made by AO based on\nsuch impounded document treating it as incriminating one. We object

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

133A was also carried out at the official premises of\nassessee M/s. SNJ & Associates at 1st Floor, Mangalam Icon, Ramnagar\nSquare, Nagpur. During the course of survey, an Excel Sheet Annexure B-2 at\nPage no. 4 is found and impounded. The addition is made by AO based on\nsuch impounded document treating it as incriminating one. We object

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

reassessing the income of the assessee. So, when the Assessing Officer failed to make any addition for the undisclosed asset, then it tantamount to admission that there was no jurisdictional fact present before the Assessing Officer in the first place, and the necessary corollary is that he has wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 153C for the impugned assessment year

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

reassessing the income of the assessee. So, when the Assessing Officer failed to make any addition for the undisclosed asset, then it tantamount to admission that there was no jurisdictional fact present before the Assessing Officer in the first place, and the necessary corollary is that he has wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 153C for the impugned assessment year

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

reassessing the income of the assessee. So, when the Assessing Officer failed to make any addition for the undisclosed asset, then it tantamount to admission that there was no jurisdictional fact present before the Assessing Officer in the first place, and the necessary corollary is that he has wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 153C for the impugned assessment year

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

reassessing the income of the assessee. So, when the Assessing Officer failed to make any addition for the undisclosed asset, then it tantamount to admission that there was no jurisdictional fact present before the Assessing Officer in the first place, and the necessary corollary is that he has wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 153C for the impugned assessment year

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

reassessing the income of the assessee. So, when the Assessing Officer failed to make any addition for the undisclosed asset, then it tantamount to admission that there was no jurisdictional fact present before the Assessing Officer in the first place, and the necessary corollary is that he has wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 153C for the impugned assessment year