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

section 158BI w.e.f. 01/06/2003. 15. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred while deleting the addition holding that a completed assessment can be interfered with by the AO only on the basis of some incriminating documents ignoring the crucial fact that original assessment made u/s 143(1) had not reached finality

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

section 158BI w.e.f. 01/06/2003. 15. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred while deleting the addition holding that a completed assessment can be interfered with by the AO only on the basis of some incriminating documents ignoring the crucial fact that original assessment made u/s 143(1) had not reached finality

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

section 158BI w.e.f. 01/06/2003. 15. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred while deleting the addition holding that a completed assessment can be interfered with by the AO only on the basis of some incriminating documents ignoring the crucial fact that original assessment made u/s 143(1) had not reached finality

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

section 158BI w.e.f. 01/06/2003. 15. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred while deleting the addition holding that a completed assessment can be interfered with by the AO only on the basis of some incriminating documents ignoring the crucial fact that original assessment made u/s 143(1) had not reached finality

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

section 158BI w.e.f. 01/06/2003. 15. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred while deleting the addition holding that a completed assessment can be interfered with by the AO only on the basis of some incriminating documents ignoring the crucial fact that original assessment made u/s 143(1) had not reached finality

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

section 158BI w.e.f. 01/06/2003. 15. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred while deleting the addition holding that a completed assessment can be interfered with by the AO only on the basis of some incriminating documents ignoring the crucial fact that original assessment made u/s 143(1) had not reached finality

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

assessment u/s153C for „relevant AY‟ as per „fourth proviso‟ to 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

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

assessment u/s153C for „relevant AY‟ as per „fourth proviso‟ to 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

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

assessment u/s153C for „relevant AY‟ as per „fourth proviso‟ to 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

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

assessment u/s153C for „relevant AY‟ as per „fourth proviso‟ to 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

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

assessment u/s153C for „relevant AY‟ as per „fourth proviso‟ to 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

ITO, WARD- 1)1), NAGPUR vs. AXYKNO ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 68 of IT Act, 1961. 4.3.1 The AO has dealt the issue relating to unexplained credits on account of share application money at para 10 of the assessment order. The AO has noticed that during the course of search proceedings in the case of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain his statement was recorded

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

reopen the completed assessment. In paras 15 & 16, it is held as under:** 8. For the reasons stated here in below, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by Kabul Chawla (2015) (Del HC) and Saumya Construction (2016) (Guj), taking the view that no addition can be made in respect of completed assessment in absence of any incriminating

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

reopen the completed assessment. In paras 15 & 16, it is held as under:** 8. For the reasons stated here in below, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by Kabul Chawla (2015) (Del HC) and Saumya Construction (2016) (Guj), taking the view that no addition can be made in respect of completed assessment in absence of any incriminating

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

reopen the completed assessment. In paras 15 & 16, it is held as under:** 8. For the reasons stated here in below, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by Kabul Chawla (2015) (Del HC) and Saumya Construction (2016) (Guj), taking the view that no addition can be made in respect of completed assessment in absence of any incriminating

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

reopen the completed assessment. In paras 15 & 16, it is held as under:** 8. For the reasons stated here in below, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by Kabul Chawla (2015) (Del HC) and Saumya Construction (2016) (Guj), taking the view that no addition can be made in respect of completed assessment in absence of any incriminating