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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 68 and imposed penalty on it under section 271(1)(c) Tribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty

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

68 and imposed penalty on it under section 271(1)(c)\nTribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty

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

68 and imposed penalty on it under section 271(1)(c)\nTribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty

RAVINDRA MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 of the I.T. Act. As such the claim of interest is also not allowable on this ground also. Penalty proceedings for under reporting u/s 270A of the I.T. Act has also been initiated separately.” 30. In the first ground of appeal, the assessee has successfully assailed the addition under section

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

68 and imposed penalty on it under section 271(1)(c)\nTribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty

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

68 and imposed penalty on it under section 271(1)(c)\nTribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty

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

68 and imposed penalty on it under section 271(1)(c)\nTribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty

GIRDHARILAL MOTILAL AGRAWAL,BULDANA vs. ITO WARD-1, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 68 of the Act for want of supporting documentary evidences. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

68 and imposed penalty on it under section 271(1)(c)\nTribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

68 of the Act. Ground is, thus, allowed.” 6. Before us, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) be reversed. He submitted that the transactions are colourable device and corporate vial may be lifted. 7. Per–contra, the learned Authorised Representative

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

68 of the Act. Ground is, thus, allowed.” 6. Before us, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) be reversed. He submitted that the transactions are colourable device and corporate vial may be lifted. 7. Per–contra, the learned Authorised Representative

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

68 of the Act. Ground is, thus, allowed.” 6. Before us, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and prayed that the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) be reversed. He submitted that the transactions are colourable device and corporate vial may be lifted. 7. Per–contra, the learned Authorised Representative

SHRI BABURAO RAMBHAU KAPTE,CHANDRAPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDRAPUR RANGE, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

68 days. The delay of days was due to bonafide belief, reasonable cause and not attributable to the Appellant. Therefore in the interest of justice, delay in filing the present Appeal, may kindly be condoned. No prejudice is going to be cause to the Revenue if delay is condoned and Appeal is decided on merits.” 4. On a perusal

UMESH SADASHIV THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

68, which is ignored by the Addl.CIT while granting such mechanical approval. He has not even cared that in the absence of required satisfaction note“ for each year separately, entire assessment under section 153C would be vitiated.\n60.\nIn the present case before us, we noted that the Addl.CIT did not mention anything in the approval order passed under section

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

68, which is ignored by the Addl.CIT while granting such mechanical approval. He has not even cared that in the absence of required satisfaction note“ for each year separately, entire assessment under section 153C would be vitiated. 60. In the present case before us, we noted that the Addl.CIT did not mention anything in the approval order passed under section

UMESH SADASHIV THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

68, which is ignored by the Addl.CIT while granting such mechanical approval. He has not even cared that in the absence of required satisfaction note“ for each year separately, entire assessment under section 153C would be vitiated. 60. In the present case before us, we noted that the Addl.CIT did not mention anything in the approval order passed under section

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year