SUBHASHCHAND CHANDAK (HUF),NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

154 against the appeal order passed u/s 250. 2. That, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the Ground No. 5 raised in Grounds of appeal. Shri Subhashchand Chandak (HUF) ITA no.85/Nag./2021 3. That, whether additions made on other grounds would sustained, when the primary ground on the basis of which reassessment u/s 147

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHANDARA, FIRST FLOOR, GANGA MOTORS BUILDING, Z P CHOWK, BHANDARA Z vs. ZILLA PARISHAD SHASHKIYA KARMCHARI SAHKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT, BHANDARA

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

rectification proceedings u/s 154 of the Act on the issues on which the subsequent reassessment notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 26.03.2021. 6.2.4 Accordingly, it is clear that the assessing officer has initiated the reassessment proceedings beyond 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year without receipt of any tangible material evidences. Hence

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

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can't usurp

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

rectification order under section 154 of the Act. 4. In grounds no.1 to 4, the assessee has challenged the validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Act. 5. Notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 29/03/2017, after recording reasons for escapement of income. The reasons recorded for issuance of notice, as provided to the assessee

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

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

154 of Paper Book. iv. The appellant respectfully submits that all the shares allotted to Avance Technologies Limited were amount received earlier in A.Y. 2010-11 towards advance against booking of property and later on booking were cancelled and allotment of shares were made against the said amount during the previous year relevant to Asstt. Year 2012-13. The appellant

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

147(b)” were inadvertently filled in the prescribed form, instead of sec147 while obtaining the sanction from the Jt.CIT. It is further submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the same is a curable defect u/s292B. Therefore, the impugned notice cannot be held to be bad for mere incorrect mentioning of sec on account of the mistake. 8. There

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

147(b)” were inadvertently filled in the prescribed form, instead of sec147 while obtaining the sanction from the Jt.CIT. It is further submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the same is a curable defect u/s292B. Therefore, the impugned notice cannot be held to be bad for mere incorrect mentioning of sec on account of the mistake. 8. There

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

147(b)” were inadvertently filled in the prescribed form, instead of sec147 while obtaining the sanction from the Jt.CIT. It is further submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the same is a curable defect u/s292B. Therefore, the impugned notice cannot be held to be bad for mere incorrect mentioning of sec on account of the mistake. 8. There

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

147(b)” were inadvertently filled in the prescribed form, instead of sec147 while obtaining the sanction from the Jt.CIT. It is further submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the same is a curable defect u/s292B. Therefore, the impugned notice cannot be held to be bad for mere incorrect mentioning of sec on account of the mistake. 8. There

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

147(b)” were inadvertently filled in the prescribed form, instead of sec147 while obtaining the sanction from the Jt.CIT. It is further submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the same is a curable defect u/s292B. Therefore, the impugned notice cannot be held to be bad for mere incorrect mentioning of sec on account of the mistake. 8. There

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

147(b)” were inadvertently filled in the prescribed form, instead of sec147 while obtaining the sanction from the Jt.CIT. It is further submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the same is a curable defect u/s292B. Therefore, the impugned notice cannot be held to be bad for mere incorrect mentioning of sec on account of the mistake. 8. There

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

reassessment order in search cases, then, it is the duty\nof the Jt.CIT to exercise such powers by applying his judicious mind. We are\n60\nUmesh Sadashiv Thakre Α.Υ. 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21\nof the view that the obligation of the approval of the Approving Authority is\nof 2 folds; on one hand

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all\nthe appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment order in search cases, then, it is the duty\nof the Jt.CIT to exercise such powers by applying his judicious mind. We are\n60\nUmesh Sadashiv Thakre\nΑ.Υ. 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19,\n2019-20 & 2020-21\nof the view that the obligation of the approval of the Approving Authority is\nof 2 folds; on one hand

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

reassessment order in search cases, then, it is the duty\nof the Jt.CIT to exercise such powers by applying his judicious mind. We are\nof the view that the obligation of the approval of the Approving Authority is\nof 2 folds; on one hand, he has to apply his mind to secure in build for the\nDepartment against any omission

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all\nthe appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment order in search cases, then, it is the duty\nof the Jt.CIT to exercise such powers by applying his judicious mind. We are\n60\nUmesh Sadashiv Thakre Α.Υ. 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21\nof the view that the obligation of the approval of the Approving Authority is\nof 2 folds; on one hand

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all\nthe appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment order in search cases, then, it is the duty\nof the Jt.CIT to exercise such powers by applying his judicious mind. We are\nof the view that the obligation of the approval of the Approving Authority is\nof 2 folds; on one hand, he has to apply his mind to secure in build for the\nDepartment against any omission