DY. C.I.T. CIR-.2, NAGPUR vs. SHRI GOVINDDAS GOVERDHAN DAGA, NAGPUR

In the result, cross-objection filed by the assessee stands dismissed

31,94,4007\n17,32,12,466\nSelling Expenses\n₹0\n*86,47,052\n86,47,052\nNet Sale Consideration\n*18,459\n16,45,46,955\n16,45,65,414\nCapital Gains\n*15,354\n16,36,74,245\n16,36,89,599\n3.\nThe assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54F, being investment made in\n\"Capital Gain

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

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 21.09.2016 for A.Y.2009-10. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under : “1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs 2,31,89,907/- made by the AO as capital gain taxable u/s

PRABODH SADASHIV SADAVARTEM(HUF),NAGPUR vs. I.T.O.(TDS) WARD -1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act is not valid, before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) discussed the same in detail at para 8 of the impugned order. The CIT(A) held the AO rightly formed an opinion that there was no detailed examination of the issue u/s. 54B of the Act in the intimation proceedings. The relevant portion

SHRI PRABODH SADASHIV SADAVARTE (HUF), NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(4),, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act is not valid, before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) discussed the same in detail at para 8 of the impugned order. The CIT(A) held the AO rightly formed an opinion that there was no detailed examination of the issue u/s. 54B of the Act in the intimation proceedings. The relevant portion

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

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

31-10-2007 may be treated as return of income in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Further, on perusal of the assessment record that the assessee sought copy of reasons and inspection of records for A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2008-09. The AO afforded inspection of the records, wherein, it is emanating from para

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

31) of the I.T.Act is a separate juristic legal entity distinct from its members and a search in the residential premises of the partners of the firm cannot be considered as search of partnership firm. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: 1) Tirupati Oil Corp.248ITR194(BOM HC) 2) Nenmal Parmer 195ITR0582(KAR HC) 3) Shri Govind G. Sarawagi

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

147 r.w.s. 144B by Department. In such circumstances, it is inconceivable and commercially implausible that sales could have been effected without corresponding purchases. The action of department in disputing the purchases made by appellant from M/s Dadhichi Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. is wholly untenable in law. Department on one hand accepted sales of goods purchased from M/s Dadhichi Iron & Steel

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

31) (30( [Vol. – II] D) Reasons recorded are mere change of opinion. No new tangible material has comes on record. Notice issued u/s 148 is not in accordance with law. Reliance on Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported at 320 ITR 561(SC). (P- 1 to 5) (2) [Vol. – II] E) Reasons recorded indicate that notice u/s 148 has been issued

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

147 r.w.s. 143(3) & 144 B of the Act and assessed income at Rs. 2,42,54,457/- without making further any additions. 6. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide its order dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel

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

VIJAY VINOD DURAGKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

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

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

u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) on account of Stamp Duty Valuation ` 7,58,97,000 of Property Less: Purchase Cost (–) ` 1,53,02,000 Balance ` 6,05,95,000 50% share (Addition made) ` 3,02,97,500 The assessee was not satisfied with the order so passed by the Assessing Officer, hence approached first appellate authority for redressal

S. R. TECHNICAL SERVICES,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.42/Nag/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 S R Technical Services, The Principal C/O. K N D & Associates, Vs Commissioner Of 502-503, Satyam Apartment, Income Tax, Dhantoli, Wardha Road, Nagpur – 2. Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Abmfs6131K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2023

section 147 r.w.s.143(3) of the Act, dated 18.12.2018. The grounds of appeal filed by the Assessee are as under : “1. The assessee had submitted its return of income declaring Total income at Rs. 2,72,461/- on 30/09/2011. The assessee was issued notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147

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

147 of the Act at ` 19,88,25,743. He also initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act separately. The assessee being aggrieved by the order so passed by the Assessing Officer, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed application for condonation of delay along with affidavit

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

147 of the Act at ` 19,88,25,743. He also initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act separately. The assessee being aggrieved by the order so passed by the Assessing Officer, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed application for condonation of delay along with affidavit