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

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

set-off of brought forward losses of Rs. 59.92 lacs. Backed by his aforesaid contentions, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that now when the case of the assessee was reopened by the Assessing Officer u/s. 147 of the Act in the absence of any valid approval/sanction u/s.151 of the Act, therefore, the assessment framed by him u/s

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

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

loss on the basis of evidence directly submitted before him and without asking remand report to verify such evidence.\n6. Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.”\n3.\nIn ground no.1, relates to the action of the Assessing Officer in re-\nopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income

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

reassessment proceedings. The assessee's claim that the difference in market value and purchase consideration being 14.1% i.e. less than 15%, should be accepted as being nominal and relied upon case laws i) M/s LGW Limited Vs ITO Ward 2(3) ITA No. 267/Kol/2013 (2015) ii) M/s John Fowler (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income

PRADEEP DATTATRAYA BANGINWAR,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 28/Nag/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pradeep Dattatraya Banginwar, At- Trimurti Sales, Datta Chowk, Yavatmal-445 001. Pan : Abcpb5111C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.M. Gandhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :17.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2022

set-aside the assessment order to the file of the AO with a direction to re-assess the income afresh i.e, after examination of the relevant details on the basis of a proper enquiry as may be relevant and necessary. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated

VISHAL KISHORILAL JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

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

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted

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

reassessment proceedings vide para No. 10 of the assessment order, wherein, he clearly held that there was no loss available for A.Y. 2002-03 which was assessed u/s. 143(3) of the Act determining Nil income after allowing deduction u/s. 80P of the Act against the income for the year 3 ITA No. 308/NAG/2015, A.Y. 2007-08 under consideration. Further

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

set-off of brought forward losses is highly unjustified, unwarranted, unsustainable, presumptive, arbitrary, uncorroborated, lacking intelligible basis, purely based on the dictates of observations in the Order under section 148A(d), not proper on facts and not in accordance with the provisions of law and it is earnestly requested that the same may please be deleted. GROUND

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

setting aside the assessment to make further enquiries is unjustified. The learned PCIT cannot term the impugned order passed as erroneous in the absence of any mistake found in the computation of income when all the details were before him. Thus, the impugned order passed under section 263 of the Act is unjustified, bad–in–law and likely

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 of I.T. Act 1961 dated 06/02/2024 as placed in the paper book at page135 – 139 (Vol.- II). This further substantiates the authenticity and genuineness of the transactions under consideration. Sales of trading goods purchased are accepted. Business loss as shown in return is accepted and books of account are not rejected. Considering facts and evidence on record

MAYUR KHARA,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

loss of revenue or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Unless both these factors co-exist or exist simultaneously, the Commissioner cannot invoke or resort to section 263. It cannot be exercised to correct every conceivable error committed by an ITO. Before the suomoto power of revision can be exercised, the Commissioner must at least prima facie find both

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

u/s 69C based on the report of the Department Valuation Officer. The appellant had challenged the said addition before the CIT(A), who has granted the relief by observation as follows: “The case of the appellant is further strengthened by the fact that the construction of the project was not executed by the appellant itself but was given on back

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

u/s 69C based on the report of the Department Valuation Officer. The appellant had challenged the said addition before the CIT(A), who has granted the relief by observation as follows: “The case of the appellant is further strengthened by the fact that the construction of the project was not executed by the appellant itself but was given on back

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

u/s 69C based on the report of the Department Valuation Officer. The appellant had challenged the said addition before the CIT(A), who has granted the relief by observation as follows: “The case of the appellant is further strengthened by the fact that the construction of the project was not executed by the appellant itself but was given on back

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

u/s 69C based on the report of the Department Valuation Officer. The appellant had challenged the said addition before the CIT(A), who has granted the relief by observation as follows: “The case of the appellant is further strengthened by the fact that the construction of the project was not executed by the appellant itself but was given on back

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

u/s 69C based on the report of the Department Valuation Officer. The appellant had challenged the said addition before the CIT(A), who has granted the relief by observation as follows: “The case of the appellant is further strengthened by the fact that the construction of the project was not executed by the appellant itself but was given on back

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

u/s 69C based on the report of the Department Valuation Officer. The appellant had challenged the said addition before the CIT(A), who has granted the relief by observation as follows: “The case of the appellant is further strengthened by the fact that the construction of the project was not executed by the appellant itself but was given on back

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

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

u/s. on 22.09.2015. However, it is seen from the record that instead of this income being offered to tax what has been credited to the P&L A/c is receipts of Rs.2,20,00,000/-. It is also seen that the incriminating documents having a bearing on assessment of income impounded during survey have not been examined by the Assessing