DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. VINODKUMAR RAJENDRALAL KOCHHAR, KAMPTEE

In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed

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

70,420/-. Assessment u/s 143(3) of I.T. Act, 1961 was completed on 20.08.2018 by accepting the returned income. The assessee is proprietor of M/s Minor Forest Produce Export engaged in the business of export of forest produce. 2. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of substantial increase in Capital in a year. 3. Proprietor's Capital

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

147 read with section 148, on basis of report from Investigation wing of department. Therefore, where assessing Officer had been supplied with information by Investigation wing and he applied his mind to such information, there was no infirmity or illegality in issuance of notice under section 148. 6.2.4 In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-7 vs. Paramount

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

147 read with section 148, on basis of report from Investigation wing of department. Therefore, where assessing Officer had been supplied with information by Investigation wing and he applied his mind to such information, there was no infirmity or illegality in issuance of notice under section 148. 6.2.4 In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-7 vs. Paramount

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

147 read with section 148, on basis of report from Investigation wing of department. Therefore, where assessing Officer had been supplied with information by Investigation wing and he applied his mind to such information, there was no infirmity or illegality in issuance of notice under section 148. 6.2.4 In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-7 vs. Paramount

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

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

70,50,000/- was sent to the assessee vide show-cause notice dated 25.03.2022. IN response to the show-cause notice, assessee furnished written submissions along with relevant documents. After considering the submissions and 5 documents, explanation of the assessee was accepted and assessment is completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) & 144 B of the Act and assessed income

VINAY RAMSHARANDAS AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

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

70,000/- and difference in sale consideration as per income tax return and the amount reported in Form 26QB during the course of assessment proceedings. viii.During the course of proceedings initiated under section 263 against the assessee, the assessee filed interest details before the PCIT. However assessee has failed to prove with evidence as to how the payments were made

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

70,97,750, under section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act in the hands of Shri Vinod Durgukar, the husband of the assessee. Shri Durugkar, in response submitted that they have vide mutual agreement made additional payment of ` 53,16,327, to the vendors for the same property which also ought to be considered. The total payment thus made

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

147. It is a well-settled law that where the Assessing Officer fails to make proper inquiries and investigation, such failure on the part of the Assessing Officer will result in prejudice to interests of the revenue and initiation of action under section 263 by the Commissioner under such circumstances will be perfectly valid and justified. The question whether

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

SHRI AMJAD AHMED SHEIKH,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

147 proceedings, in support of the source of investment in property. you had famished a copy of bank statement of your savings account held with Allahabad Bank Butibori branch. From the statement it is seen that part of the purchase consideration, ie. of Rs. 30,00,000/- had been paid by you in FY 2012-13. Further, from the purchase

SARDA ENERGY LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

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

70 (SC)(03-10-2024) as the same was issued beyond the 'surviving period under the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act") read with TOLA and hence, the reassessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 1448 of the Act on 17.05.2023 is bad in law, barred by limitation, unsustainable and liable to be set aside and quashed. (ii) That the Reassessment

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

RAMKRUSHNA ZILBAJI THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WRAD -4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment of income under provisions . of Section 147· read with S.143(2) of Ramkrishna Zimbaji Thakre for A.Y.2010-11 and in the matter of addition to income on account of cash deposits in bank accounts under section 68 which are jointly held along with spouse of the assessee and in the matter of rejecting the explanation that said deposits are made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S SUNFLAG IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos. 268 & 269/Nag/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Nagpur. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. 33, Mount Road, Sadar, Nagpur-440 001 Pan : Aaccs3376C ……""यथ" / Respondent

70,65,603/- u/s.80IA(4)(iv) qua the electricity generated by its power plant that was transferred/sold to MSEDCL and assessed its income at Rs. 128,91,42,023/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). After deliberating at length on the issue in question, i.e., entitlement of the assessee for deduction u/s. 80IA