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

reassessment u/s 147 had been passed. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances, the learned CIT erred in neither making any enquiry on his own nor considering merits of case but simply directed the learned AO to make proper enquiry and further verification thereby, rendering the order passed u/s 263 bad in law which deserves to be set aside

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

reassessment u/s 147 had been passed. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances, the learned CIT erred in neither making any enquiry on his own nor considering merits of case but simply directed the learned AO to make proper enquiry and further verification thereby, rendering the order passed u/s 263 bad in law which deserves to be set aside

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA RADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

20-09-2011 30-07-2012 11-09-2014 Last date for issue of 30-09-2012 30-09-2013 30-09-2015 notice u/s 143(2) Whether notice u/s 143(2) NO NO Not applicable issued Date of Search 02-12-2014 02-12-2014 02-12-2014 Unabated/Abated Unabated Unabated Abated 5. Initially we took up the ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER , NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

20-09-2011 30-07-2012 11-09-2014 Last date for issue of 30-09-2012 30-09-2013 30-09-2015 notice u/s 143(2) Whether notice u/s 143(2) NO NO Not applicable issued Date of Search 02-12-2014 02-12-2014 02-12-2014 Unabated/Abated Unabated Unabated Abated 5. Initially we took up the ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

20-09-2011 30-07-2012 11-09-2014 Last date for issue of 30-09-2012 30-09-2013 30-09-2015 notice u/s 143(2) Whether notice u/s 143(2) NO NO Not applicable issued Date of Search 02-12-2014 02-12-2014 02-12-2014 Unabated/Abated Unabated Unabated Abated 5. Initially we took up the ground

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

20-09-2011 30-07-2012 11-09-2014 Last date for issue of 30-09-2012 30-09-2013 30-09-2015 notice u/s 143(2) Whether notice u/s 143(2) NO NO Not applicable issued Date of Search 02-12-2014 02-12-2014 02-12-2014 Unabated/Abated Unabated Unabated Abated 5. Initially we took up the ground

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

20-09-2011 30-07-2012 11-09-2014 Last date for issue of 30-09-2012 30-09-2013 30-09-2015 notice u/s 143(2) Whether notice u/s 143(2) NO NO Not applicable issued Date of Search 02-12-2014 02-12-2014 02-12-2014 Unabated/Abated Unabated Unabated Abated 5. Initially we took up the ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

20-09-2011 30-07-2012 11-09-2014 Last date for issue of 30-09-2012 30-09-2013 30-09-2015 notice u/s 143(2) Whether notice u/s 143(2) NO NO Not applicable issued Date of Search 02-12-2014 02-12-2014 02-12-2014 Unabated/Abated Unabated Unabated Abated 5. Initially we took up the ground

NIRMALKUMAR AGRAWAL HUF,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHANDARA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

reassessment order dated 24.03.2023 passed by AO u/s 147 read with 5 Nirmalkumar Agrawal (HUF) ITA no.242/Nag./2025 section 144B of the Act for A.Y. 2018-19 in the case of the assessee is set aside, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh Assessment Order denovo, after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee

THE AMRAVATI PEOPLE CO-OP BANK LTD ( NOW MERGED IN THE COSMOS CO-OP BANK LTD),AMARAVATI vs. D.C.I.T. AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMARAVATI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 309/Nag/2015 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Amravati Peoples Co-Op. Bank Limited (Now Merged In The Cosmos Co-Op. Bank Ltd.) C/O. Cosmos Co-Op Bank Ltd. Jawahar Road, Amravati-444601. Pan : Aaact5899B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Amravati Circle, Amravati. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.G. Gandhi, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Agnes P. Thomas, Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09.05.2022

reassessment proceedings under section 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act, it is not in dispute that the A.O. is required to get the approval of the competent authority i.e; JCIT in the present case. Copy of the form for recording the reasons for initiating the proceedings under section 148 ofthe Act and for obtaining the approval of the JCIT

VAISHNAV YASHWANT ASHTANKAR,NAGPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - NAGPUR 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 147 r.w.s. 144B for A.Y. 2016-17. 1. In addition, it is seen that the source of investment in the purchase of property i.e. Rs. 34,28,333/- (1/3rd of the purchase consideration of Rs. 1,02,85,000/-) had been claimed by the assessee during reassessment proceedings to be out of old savings and receipts on sale

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

reassessment u/s 147 initiated, cease to exist as per appeal order, whether additions made on other grounds will be deleted suo-moto or whether same has to be argued separately before appellate forum for its deletion. 6. That, the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of deposit in passbook treated as income of the assessee u/s 68 is against

ITO, WARD- 4,, CHANDRAPUR vs. M/S. K.S.R. TRANSPORT COMPANY,, CHANDRAPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.364/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant M/S.Ksr Transport, Commissioner Of Income V Padoli Chadda Building, Tax, Chandrapur Circle, S Kosara Road, Chandrapur. Chandrapur. Pan: Aabfk3222D Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Cross Objection No.02/Nag/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.364/Nag/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S.Ksr Transport, The Assistant Padoli Chadda Building, V Commissioner Of Income Kosara Road, Chandrapur. S Tax, Chandrapur Circle, Pan: Aabfk3222D Chandrapur. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mukesh Agrawal – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09/01/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)-2, Nagpur Dated 28.08.2019 Emanating From

reassessment proceedings afresh and upheld the addition made by the AO. ITA No.364/NAG/2019 & C.O.No.02/NAG/2020 M/s.K S R Transport Company (Cross Appeal) 6. Any other ground that may be raise during the proceedings.” 2. The assessee filed C.O.No.02/PUN/2020. The assessee has raised the ground of appeal as under : “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. M/S CHADDA TRANSPORT , CHANDRAPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.363/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant M/S.Chadda Transport, Commissioner Of V Kosara Road, Padoli, Income Tax, S Chandrapur, Chandrapur Circle, Maharashtra – 442401. Chandrapur. Pan: Aaafc8556F Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Cross Objection No.01/Nag/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.363/Nag/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S.Chadda Transport, The Assistant Kosara Road, Padoli, V Commissioner Of Income Chandrapur, S Tax, Maharashtra – 442401. Chandrapur Circle, Chandrapur. Pan: Aaafc8556F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mukesh Agrawal – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Mrathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/12/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am:

reassessment proceedings afresh and upheld the addition made by the AO. 6. Any other ground that may be raise during the proceedings.” 2. The assessee filed C.O.No.01/PUN/2020. The assessee has raised the ground of appeal as under : ITA No.363/NAG/2019 & C.O.No.01/NAG/2020 M/s.Chadda Transport (Cross Appeal) “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the reopening

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)

u/s 147 of the Act by recording the reasons for reopening and issuing notice dated 28/02/2019 u/sec. 148 of the Act. 9. The Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings, also observed that the Assessee vide agreement to sale dated 24/08/2015 had purchased land at Mouza Vadala Paiku Tal- Chimur, District Chandrapur for a consideration of Rs. 70.00 lakhs

AXYKNO CAPITAL SERVICES LTD,,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, NAGPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

reassessment of proceedings and instead what is required is some tangible material which suggest escapement of income. The information received from investigating wing constitutes a fresh material which is sufficient to form a basis for escapement of income. Therefore, we are of the considered view that reopening as done by the AO is legally tenable and accordingly dismiss the ground

M/S NEW VIRAJ HOUSING AGENCY,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the three years is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

20 SOT 489 (ITAT Mum.) upheld by Hon’ble Bombay HC in its judgment dated 29.06.2009 in ITA No. 589/2009 and the SLP filed by the revenue against the HC judgment has been dismissed by the Hon’ble SC in SLP CC 31208/2010 on 29.10.2010 4) Unique Star Developers Vs DCIT-57ITR 0463 (ITAT Mumbai) h) It is a settled

VIKRAM AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings." 6.2.5 I have perused the matter and it is seen from the assessment order that the proper procedure was followed and no infirmity in law. The Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment and this belief should be of an honest and reasonable person based on reasonable grounds. Taking

VIKRAM AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4 (4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

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

reassessment proceedings." 6.2.5 I have perused the matter and it is seen from the assessment order that the proper procedure was followed and no infirmity in law. The Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment and this belief should be of an honest and reasonable person based on reasonable grounds. Taking