LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

section 147 of the Act. 4.1 The assessee submits that; reassessment proceedings were initiated based on specified issues identified as per reasons recorded. The proceedings were concluded and returned income was accepted vide assessment order passed u/s 147 dated 29/03/2022. Therefore, once the learned AO did not make any additions on issues identified as per reasons recorded, then

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

SUNRISE STRUCTURALS & ENGINEERING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roysunrise Structural & Acit/Dcit, Circle-4, Engineering P. Ltd., A10, Vs Nagpur Hingna Midc, Nagpur (Urban), Nagpur-440016 Pan : Aaccs 3220 M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R

Reassessment proceedings unsustainable on ground of violation of procedure prescribed under section 148A(b). Reliance on : i) 150 taxmann.com 99 (Bom) Anurag Gupta vs. ITO (P- 135 – 139) (138) [Vol.- III] 3. Ground No.2 to 7: Addition Rs.6,77,58,435/- u/s 69C of I.T. Act 1961 is respect of purchases recorded in books of account. A) Regular books

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

reassessment proceedings. It is settled proposition of law that reasons recorded for verification of transaction are not in accordance with law. H) Reasons recorded does not indicate any date, year of transaction and link of assessee with statement of Shri Shirish Shah and thus it is no valid reasons for issue of notice u/s 148 in the case of assessee

CHANDRAKUMAR MADHUSUDANJI JAJODIA,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment is general in nature and is not on specific transaction of assessee. Evidence placed on record is not found to be incorrect or false. Conclusion of escapement of income tantamount to mere change of opinion. Belief of escapement of income could not be derived on the basis of report of Investigation Wing being not specific to transaction of loan

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

section 68 is clear. The Legislature has laid down\nthat in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash\ncredit may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of\nthat previous year. In this, case the legislative mandate is not in terms\nof the words \"shall be charged to income-tax as the income

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 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

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 69 has held that in creating the legal fiction the phraseology employs the word \"may\" and not \"shall\". Thus the unsatisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case

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

147 to 149, 151 and 153. By virtue of the 2017 Amending Act, significant amendments came to be introduced in section 153A. These included, inter alia, the search assessment block being enlarged to 10 AYs consequent to the addition of the stipulation of “relevant AY” and which was defined to mean those years which would fall beyond the 6 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

147 to 149, 151 and 153. By virtue of the 2017 Amending Act, significant amendments came to be introduced in section 153A. These included, inter alia, the search assessment block being enlarged to 10 AYs consequent to the addition of the stipulation of “relevant AY” and which was defined to mean those years which would fall beyond the 6 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

147 to 149, 151 and 153. By virtue of the 2017 Amending Act, significant amendments came to be introduced in section 153A. These included, inter alia, the search assessment block being enlarged to 10 AYs consequent to the addition of the stipulation of “relevant AY” and which was defined to mean those years which would fall beyond the 6 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

147 to 149, 151 and 153. By virtue of the 2017 Amending Act, significant amendments came to be introduced in section 153A. These included, inter alia, the search assessment block being enlarged to 10 AYs consequent to the addition of the stipulation of “relevant AY” and which was defined to mean those years which would fall beyond the 6 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

147 to 149, 151 and 153. By virtue of the 2017 Amending Act, significant amendments came to be introduced in section 153A. These included, inter alia, the search assessment block being enlarged to 10 AYs consequent to the addition of the stipulation of “relevant AY” and which was defined to mean those years which would fall beyond the 6 year

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

150 taxmann.com 146 (Ori HC)\ndt.15-3-23, concluded that-\n“16. That such an approval of a superior officer cannot be a mechanical\nexercise has been emphasized in several decisions. Illustratively, in the\ncontext of sec142(2A) which empowers an AO to direct a special audit. The\nobtaining of the prior approval was held to be mandatory. Rajesh Kumar

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year