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

68,000, was made on account of alleged commission income. A survey action under section 133A of the Act was also carried out at the official premises of assessee i.e., M/s. SNJ & Associates, (a Partnership Firm in which Shri Sanjay Jain, who is a Chartered Accountant, is also a Partner) situated at 1st Floor, Mangalam Icon, Ramnagar Square, Nagpur

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

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

68,000, was made on account of alleged commission income. A survey action under section 133A of the Act was also carried out at the official premises of assessee i.e., M/s. SNJ & Associates, (a Partnership Firm in which Shri Sanjay Jain, who is a Chartered Accountant, is also a Partner) situated at 1st Floor, Mangalam Icon, Ramnagar Square, Nagpur

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

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

68,000, was made on account of alleged commission income. A survey action under section 133A of the Act was also carried out at the official premises of assessee i.e., M/s. SNJ & Associates, (a Partnership Firm in which Shri Sanjay Jain, who is a Chartered Accountant, is also a Partner) situated at 1st Floor, Mangalam Icon, Ramnagar Square, Nagpur

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

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

68,000, was made on account of alleged commission income. A survey action under section 133A of the Act was also carried out at the official premises of assessee i.e., M/s. SNJ & Associates, (a Partnership Firm in which Shri Sanjay Jain, who is a Chartered Accountant, is also a Partner) situated at 1st Floor, Mangalam Icon, Ramnagar Square, Nagpur

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

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

68,000, was made on account of alleged commission income. A survey action under section 133A of the Act was also carried out at the official premises of assessee i.e., M/s. SNJ & Associates, (a Partnership Firm in which Shri Sanjay Jain, who is a Chartered Accountant, is also a Partner) situated at 1st Floor, Mangalam Icon, Ramnagar Square, Nagpur

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

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

68,000, was made on account of alleged commission income. A survey action under section 133A of the Act was also carried out at the official premises of assessee i.e., M/s. SNJ & Associates, (a Partnership Firm in which Shri Sanjay Jain, who is a Chartered Accountant, is also a Partner) 5 Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain ITA no.53, to 59/Nag

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

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

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

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

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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. VINODKUMAR RAJENDRALAL KOCHHAR, KAMPTEE

In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed

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

section 147/148 of the Act on the issue of increase in capital account. Considering the facts of this case, I am of the firm belief that the notice dated 30/03/2021 u/s 148 of the Act was illegal, without any basis, and deserves to be quashed. The resultant proceedings and the impugned order dated 30/03/2022

KANHAIYA KRUSHI KENDRA,YAVATMAL vs. ITO WARD -1 , YAVATMAL

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekanhaiya Krushi Kendra Main Bazar Line, Fulsa Wangi Mahagaon Dist. ……………. Appellant Yavatmal-445001, Maharashtra. Pan – Aaofk4226A V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–1, ……………. Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Yavatmal-445001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shriabhishek Kumar, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. D.R.

68 of Rs.24,56,000/- on account of undisclosed cash credits is arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and against the Principal of theory of taxation and needs to be deleted. 4) Interest u/s 234A, 234 B and 234 C of the Income Tax act 1961 being consequential in nature needs to be deleted. 5) Assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend

SANJAY GULABCHAND GUPTA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

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

Section 54 must be completed within three years after the transfer of original assets. (Para 4.13 AO's Order) & 4.16 of A.O’s order) 5. Land use was for Commercial purposes. 4. So basically there is no dispute as regards calculations of Capital gains. However the claim of exemption u/s 54F is disallowed for above reasons. Pertinent to note

BHARTI MAIND NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,YAVATMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT , YAVATMAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

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

234 C of the Income Tax act '1961 being consequential in nature needs to be deleted. 6) Assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is a Credit Co–operative Society engaged in the business of banking and providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee society

BHARTI MAIND NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,YAVATMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE , NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

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

234 C of the Income Tax act '1961 being consequential in nature needs to be deleted. 6) Assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is a Credit Co–operative Society engaged in the business of banking and providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee society