SMT. NALINI SHYAM MOUNDEKAR,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 4(1),, NAGPUR

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand allowed as above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

Survey u/s 133A was made on 24/11/2008. Notice u/s 148 are issued on 26/-03/2009. Affixture is made on 26/03/2009. Enough limitation to serve the notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 was available with A.O. of more than one years for Asstt. Year 2003-04 and for other years much more than that A.O. has hurriedly resorted

CITY LAND ASSOCIATES,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

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

reassessment.” 7. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative relied on the disclosure letter dated 29/09/2015, vide Page–1 to 4 of the Paper Book placed on record, runs as follows:– “To The Dy. C.I.T., Amravati Circle, Amravati Sir, Sub: Survey proceedings u/s 133A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

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

survey u/s 133A was conducted at business premises of the assessee on 26/12/2019 wherein assessee agreed to declare additional income of Rs. 2.03 crores on account of certain discrepancies in investment in construction of building. In the meantime the Hon'ble PCIT 1, Nagpur vide order u/s 263 of IT Act dated 23/02/2021held that the assessment order passed u/s

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

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDLAL B MALOO, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

survey u/s 133A, no evidence of rendering the services were found. Under such circumstances also the whole of such amount would be taxable in the assessee's hand. He further argued that then AO did not give credit to the amount as transport charges. He further contented that the present AO treated the same as interest and added the whole

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