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

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 framed is liable to be cancelled. 2 Chandrakumar Madhusudanji Jajodia ITA no.399/Nag./2023 3. Assessment framed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of I.T. Act 1961 is bad in law in view of no notice u/s 143(2) of I.T. Act 1961 having been issued before framing assessment even though assessee has submitted return of income on 23/10/2018 in respect

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

RADHEY MINERALS LTD,,NAGPUR vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(3),, NAGPUR

In the result these appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi.. S.No.

234B and 234C and the learned C.I.T.(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer. 2. Since the facts are identical, we refer to the facts and figures of assessment year 2007-08. 3. In all these cases there was a search action carried out in the business premises of Gupta Industries Ltd. and at the residential

ASHOKKUMAR GOKULCHAND SANANDA,BULDHANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royashokkumar Gokulchand Acit, Akola Circle, Akola Sananda, Rana Traders, Vs Gandhi Chowk, Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhan, Khamgaon Pan : Adpps 755I L Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2026

section 2 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 13) Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 3. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee not pressed grounds No. 1 to 5, therefore, same are dismissed as not pressed. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee

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

234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 9) Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 5. The assessee submitted the following submissions along with the paper book for consideration. 3.1 Ground No.1: Notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 is not in accordance with law:- A) Notice u/s 148A

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

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

BHAWANA HARIRAM LAVHALE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

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

234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 13. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 5. Facts in brief:- The appellant is an individual and has not filed return of income for assessment year

BHAWANA HARIRAM LAVHALE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

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

234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 13. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 5. Facts in brief:- The appellant is an individual and has not filed return of income for assessment year