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..

147 of the Act.” 11. Against the above order the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 12. The contentions of the learned counsel of the assessee are summarized as under : “A) AO has observed that notices u/s 148 of I.T. Act, 1961 are served by affixture on 26/03/2009. In the assessment proceeding assessee has submitted before A.O. that notice

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

133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was conducted on 22/09/2015. During the survey proceedings, the assessee had disclosed ` 2.20 crore as additional income. Thereafter, the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 12/12/2018 and the income returned by the assessee was accepted by the Assessing Officer. 4. Subsequent to the passing of assessment

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

147 of the Act on 25/12/2018. Facts of the case: Assessee filed return of income under section 139(1) of I T Act on 17/10/2016 declaring income of Rs.4,60,44,360/–. Case was selected for scrutiny and various notices were issued which were duly replied by the assessee. Assessment order under section 143(3) was passed on 25/12/2018 wherein

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

147 are started the ITO has not only the jurisdiction but also the duty to complete the assessment denovo and what is true of assm is also rule of reassessment because reassessment is nothing but a fresh assessment. 8.1 As regards the issue whether the addition is justified it is necessary to recapitulate the facts of the case. The income

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

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

reassessment is bad in law and the addition made in the assessment order is illegal as no incriminating document or unaccounted income was found during the course of search in the case of assessee. We would be submitting further while discussing the individual unds for addition made in the Assessment order. GROUND NO. 2; That the learned AO erred

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

reassessment is bad in law and the addition made in the assessment order is illegal as no incriminating document or unaccounted income was found during the course of search in the case of assessee. We would be submitting further while discussing the individual unds for addition made in the Assessment order. GROUND NO. 2; That the learned AO erred

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

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

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

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

reassessment is bad in law and the addition made in the assessment order is illegal as no incriminating document or unaccounted income was found during the course of search in the case of assessee. We would be submitting further while discussing the individual unds for addition made in the Assessment order. GROUND NO. 2; That the learned AO erred

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

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

reassessment is bad in law and the addition made in the assessment order is illegal as no incriminating document or unaccounted income was found during the course of search in the case of assessee. We would be submitting further while discussing the individual unds for addition made in the Assessment order. GROUND NO. 2; That the learned AO erred

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

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

reassessment is bad in law and the addition made in the assessment order is illegal as no incriminating document or unaccounted income was found during the course of search in the case of assessee. We would be submitting further while discussing the individual unds for addition made in the Assessment order. GROUND NO. 2; That the learned AO erred

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

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

reassessment is bad in law and the addition made in the assessment order is illegal as no incriminating document or unaccounted income was found during the course of search in the case of assessee. We would be submitting further while discussing the individual unds for addition made in the Assessment order. GROUND NO. 2; That the learned AO erred