DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S. FUELCO COAL INDIA LTD., NAGPUR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

rectification petition u/s the Act and the AO has deleted this addition vide order u/s 154 dated 00017 The AR has written that since the issue is settled now there is no need to adjudicate on this matter. Hence this ground is not adjudicated. 4.4 The ground of appeal no. 6 is that the AO has made a mistake

M/S SMS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,NAGPUR vs. D.C.I.T. CENTRALCIRCLE 2(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

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

u/s. 132 of I. T. Act took place at business premises of the assessee on 28.11.2006 and 07.09.2007. During the course of search various books of accounts, documents, computer, server and hard disc were seized by the authorized officer of the M/s. SMS Infrastructure Ltd. ITA no.566/Nag./2016 department Inspection of documents was allowed late which resulted in belated filing

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON vs. RENUKA OIL INDUSTRIES, KHAMGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

rectification application u/s 154 on 31.03.2015 and claimed total deduction of Rs.19,55,41,557/- u/s 35AD including carry forward of loss of Rs. 19.03.01,511 in 'Schedule CFL'. 6.8 Regarding the AO's finding as per point (iii) of para 6.3 above, it is noted that as the appellant had neither claimed, for whatever reasons, carry forward of loss

SUBHASHCHAND CHANDAK (HUF),NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

154 against the appeal order passed u/s 250. 2. That, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the Ground No. 5 raised in Grounds of appeal. Shri Subhashchand Chandak (HUF) ITA no.85/Nag./2021 3. That, whether additions made on other grounds would sustained, when the primary ground on the basis of which reassessment u/s 147 is initiated, ceased

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

68 and 69 of the PB which contains information\nobtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar from Central Public Information Officer who\nis none other than the Id Addl.CIT, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under RTI\nAct, wherein, it reveals that the Id Addl.CIT had granted approval for 43\ncases on 30-12-18 itself. This fact is not in dispute before

SHRI SANTOSH CHANDUMAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Santosh Tanwani Vs. The Acit A-56, Near Jain Bhavan, Bus Stand, Central Circle 2(1) Pandhurna,Chhindwara 480334 (M.P.) Nagpur Pan No.:Adapt 8743 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /06/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law. 2. On The Fact & Circumstances Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Brokerage Income At Rs.

rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act has accepted that the cash of Rs.15,00,000/- belongs to the proprietary firm M/s. Shiv Agency but rejected the appellant’s contention that cash of Rs.50,00,000/- is out of the brokerage income earned by him during the concerned FY 2018-19. It is also seen from the record that

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

68, 71) [Vol.- I] iii) (2018) 103 CCH 0112 (Mum.HC) 11 Vinay Ramsharandas Agrawal ITA no.110/Nag./2023 CIT vs. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. (P-73-77) (77) [Vol.1] L) In the case of two co-owners for assessment of capital gain computation as declared by assessee has been accepted by the department. In the case of assessee it cannot

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all\nthe appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

rectification u/s154. Thus, there was inconsistencies and\ndouble additions made by the AO in various AYs. It may also be noted that\nin the present case the facts stated in the impugned orders are that the\nsales of liquor are made by M/s. JIL to M/s. MAPSCO and Singla Group of\ncases and that part of the sale proceeds have

YRCE EDUCATE PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

68 and 69 of the PB which contains information\nobtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar from Central Public Information Officer who\nis none other than the Id Addl.CIT, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under RTI\nAct, wherein, it reveals that the Id Addl.CIT had granted approval for 43\ncases on 30-12-18 itself. This fact is not in dispute before

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all\nthe appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68 and 69 of the PB which contains information\nobtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar from Central Public Information Officer who\nis none other than the Id Addl.CIT, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under RTI\nAct, wherein, it reveals that the Id Addl.CIT had granted approval for 43\ncases on 30-12-18 itself. This fact is not in dispute before

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all\nthe appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

68 and 69 of the PB which contains information\nobtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar from Central Public Information Officer who\nis none other than the Id Addl.CIT, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under RTI\nAct, wherein, it reveals that the Id Addl.CIT had granted approval for 43\ncases on 30-12-18 itself. This fact is not in dispute before

SUBHASHCHAND SUNDERLAL CHANKAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine

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

u/s 68 is against the facts of the case. 6. That, the order passed by the A.O. and upheld by the CIT (A) as regards to additions made on the grounds other than the primary ground on which case was reopened is against the facts of case and the law applicable thereto. 7. The A.O. has not followed guidelines prescribed