ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Reassessment notices would have been served to him then this situation would not have arised.. 6. No Live Link: The Assessing officer has failed to establish live link with the information and tangible material and have also failed to establish the role of the Appellant herein with the alleged parties mentioned in the SCN and subsequently they have passed

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, , NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Reassessment notices would have been served to him then this situation would not have arised.. 6. No Live Link: The Assessing officer has failed to establish live link with the information and tangible material and have also failed to establish the role of the Appellant herein with the alleged parties mentioned in the SCN and subsequently they have passed

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Reassessment notices would have been served to him then this situation would not have arised.. 6. No Live Link: The Assessing officer has failed to establish live link with the information and tangible material and have also failed to establish the role of the Appellant herein with the alleged parties mentioned in the SCN and subsequently they have passed

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Reassessment notices would have been served to him then this situation would not have arised.. 6. No Live Link: The Assessing officer has failed to establish live link with the information and tangible material and have also failed to establish the role of the Appellant herein with the alleged parties mentioned in the SCN and subsequently they have passed

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Reassessment notices would have been served to him then this situation would not have arised.. 6. No Live Link: The Assessing officer has failed to establish live link with the information and tangible material and have also failed to establish the role of the Appellant herein with the alleged parties mentioned in the SCN and subsequently they have passed

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Reassessment notices would have been served to him then this situation would not have arised.. 6. No Live Link: The Assessing officer has failed to establish live link with the information and tangible material and have also failed to establish the role of the Appellant herein with the alleged parties mentioned in the SCN and subsequently they have passed

GOPAL PURUSHOTTAM VEGAD,AMRAVATI vs. ITO-WARD 5, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roygopal Purushottam Vegad, Ito, Ward – 5, Amravati Vinit Vihar, Mangaldham, Vs Dastur Nagar, Amravati Pan : Ajnpv 0584 A Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ratan Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2026

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 27.03.2022 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the assessee press the ground of appeal regarding the validity of notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act by the ITO, Ward-5, Amravati. He drew our attention at page No.2 of the paper book where notice u/s

PARTH ENTERPRISES ,BHADRAWATI vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

reassessment under Section 147 without establishing the necessary condition of "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment, as required under the law. The appellant had disclosed all material facts during the original assessment, and there was no failure on its part to disclose any relevant information, making the reopening unjustified and invalid. 5. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred

SIMA RAVISINGH KACHHAWAH,UMRER vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadalesima Ravisingh Kachhawah, Girad Road, Om Nagar Umrer, ……………. Appellant Nagpur- 441203 Maharastra, Pan – Aqmpk2899K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 15.03.2023, without due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in raising an arbitrary and excessive demand of Rs. 9,76,265/-, rendering the assessment order unjustified, unwarranted, and bad in law. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned

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

NEELAM JANARDHAN RACHALWAR,CHIMUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryneelam Janardhan Ito, Ward-2, Chandrapur Rachalwar, Sai Mandir Road, Tilak Ward, Chimur, Vs. Chandrapur, Maharashtra Pan: Adqpr 7539 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/sec. 271D of the Act. In addition to the above, the issue of capital gain arising out of sale of the above immovable property also needs to be covered”. 8. And therefore the Ld. AO, on the basis of the aforesaid information, reopened the case of the Assessee u/s 147 of the Act by recording the reasons for reopening

S. R. TECHNICAL SERVICES,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.42/Nag/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 S R Technical Services, The Principal C/O. K N D & Associates, Vs Commissioner Of 502-503, Satyam Apartment, Income Tax, Dhantoli, Wardha Road, Nagpur – 2. Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Abmfs6131K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2023

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed by the A.O on 18/12/2018 assessing the income at Rs. 2,72,460/-. The case of the assessee was referred for revision proceeding u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and order was passed by the Hon’ble Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-2 setting aside the order passed

GORAKSHAN SABHA, NAGPUR,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MOF, GOI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92 & 91/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Gorakshan Sabha, The Income Tax Officer, Near Hitawada Press, V Ward Exemption, Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, S Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aaatg2927L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Common Intimation Of Outstanding Demand Order For A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Facts Of Both Appeals Are Similar, We Take Up Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 As

u/s 200A is illegal and without jurisdiction.(iii)That in absence of provi. in the statute, the impugned order is invalid and bad in law. (iv)That the Ld. CIT- A has not considered the basic fact of charging of late fee with retrospective effect of the provi. of section 200A r.w.s. 234E and wrongly applied decisions of various Courts

GORAKSHAN SABHA, NAGPUR,WARDHA ROAD, NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MOF,GOI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92 & 91/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Gorakshan Sabha, The Income Tax Officer, Near Hitawada Press, V Ward Exemption, Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, S Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aaatg2927L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Common Intimation Of Outstanding Demand Order For A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Facts Of Both Appeals Are Similar, We Take Up Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 As

u/s 200A is illegal and without jurisdiction.(iii)That in absence of provi. in the statute, the impugned order is invalid and bad in law. (iv)That the Ld. CIT- A has not considered the basic fact of charging of late fee with retrospective effect of the provi. of section 200A r.w.s. 234E and wrongly applied decisions of various Courts

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

u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 27/12/2017. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances, the learned CIT(A) erred in not taking cognizance of the appellate order passed by learned CIT(A)-2, Nagpur Alfiya Ayazali Sayyad ITA no.206/Nag./2022 in appeal against quantum proceedings wherein the additions have been restricted to 10% of total alleged

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

147. It is a well-settled law that where the Assessing Officer fails to make proper inquiries and investigation, such failure on the part of the Assessing Officer will result in prejudice to interests of the revenue and initiation of action under section 263 by the Commissioner under such circumstances will be perfectly valid and justified. The question whether

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

u/s 132\nwhich can be termed as incriminating in nature. The addition is not made\nreferring to any kind of incriminating document found during the course of\nsearch. The addition made merely on the basis of entries made in the regular\nbooks of accounts of the assessee duly reflected in the assessee's financial\n30\nShri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain\nITA

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