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

133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was conducted on 22/09/2015. During the survey proceedings, the assessee had disclosed ` 2.20 crore as additional income. Thereafter, the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 12/12/2018 and the income returned by the assessee was accepted by the Assessing Officer. 4. Subsequent to the passing of assessment

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 SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A is bad in law and wrong on facts and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. (2) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by AO in the proceedings u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in absence of incriminating document

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A is bad in law and\nwrong on facts and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.\n(2) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the\naddition made by AO in the proceedings u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 in absence of incriminating

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A is bad in law and\nwrong on facts and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.\n(2) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the\naddition made by AO in the proceedings u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 in absence of incriminating

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A is bad in law and\nwrong on facts and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.\n(2) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the\naddition made by AO in the proceedings u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 in absence of incriminating

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A is bad in law and\nwrong on facts and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.\n(2) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the\naddition made by AO in the proceedings u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 in absence of incriminating

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

u/s 132\nwhich can be termed as incriminating in nature. The addition is not made\nreferring to any kind of incriminating document found during the course of\nsearch. The addition made merely on the basis of entries made in the regular\nbooks of accounts of the assessee duly reflected in the assessee's financial\n30\nShri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A is bad in law and\nwrong on facts and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.\n(2) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the\naddition made by AO in the proceedings u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 in absence of incriminating

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

reassessing the income of the assessee. So, when the Assessing Officer failed to make any addition for the undisclosed asset, then it tantamount to admission that there was no jurisdictional fact present before the Assessing Officer in the first place, and the necessary corollary is that he has wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 153C for the impugned assessment 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

reassessing the income of the assessee. So, when the Assessing Officer failed to make any addition for the undisclosed asset, then it tantamount to admission that there was no jurisdictional fact present before the Assessing Officer in the first place, and the necessary corollary is that he has wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 153C for the impugned assessment 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

reassessing the income of the assessee. So, when the Assessing Officer failed to make any addition for the undisclosed asset, then it tantamount to admission that there was no jurisdictional fact present before the Assessing Officer in the first place, and the necessary corollary is that he has wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 153C for the impugned assessment 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

reassessing the income of the assessee. So, when the Assessing Officer failed to make any addition for the undisclosed asset, then it tantamount to admission that there was no jurisdictional fact present before the Assessing Officer in the first place, and the necessary corollary is that he has wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 153C for the impugned assessment 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

reassessing the income of the assessee. So, when the Assessing Officer failed to make any addition for the undisclosed asset, then it tantamount to admission that there was no jurisdictional fact present before the Assessing Officer in the first place, and the necessary corollary is that he has wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 153C for the impugned assessment year