ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

253) while considering the question as to whether refund of sales tax on raw materials, machinery and finished goods, levied by the State Government be treated as capital or revenue in nature held as under: "Held, dismissing the appeal, that under the notification in question the payments were made to assist the new industries at the commencement of business

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

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

1,65,07,560, the ACIT\nfailed to notice the error.\n12. This aspect was brought to the fore by the Tribunal in the impugned\norder. The Trib, thus, concluded there was a complete lack of application of\nmind, inasmuch as the ACIT, who granted approval, failed to notice the said\nerror.\n12.1. More particularly, the Tribunal notes that

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

1,65,07,560, the ACIT\nfailed to notice the error.\n12. This aspect was brought to the fore by the Tribunal in the impugned\norder. The Trib, thus, concluded there was a complete lack of application of\nmind, inasmuch as the ACIT, who granted approval, failed to notice the said\nerror.\n12.1. More particularly, the Tribunal notes that

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

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

1,65,07,560, the ACIT\nfailed to notice the error.\n12. This aspect was brought to the fore by the Tribunal in the impugned\norder. The Trib, thus, concluded there was a complete lack of application of\nmind, inasmuch as the ACIT, who granted approval, failed to notice the said\nerror.\n12.1. More particularly, the Tribunal notes that

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

1 SCC 248 and SL Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1980)\n4 SCC 379).\n30. As already noted above, the expression \"civil consequences”\nencompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil\nliberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. Anything which\naffects a citizen in his civil life comes under its wide umbrella. Accordingly,\nwe reject the argument

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

CHANDRAKUMAR MADHUSUDANJI JAJODIA,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 68 or 69A of I.T. Act 1961. Addition made by A.O. is unjustified. F) Observation of A.O. at para 40 & 41 is factually incorrect. During regular assessment proceedings loan transaction was verified and examined while accepting the same as genuine loan. Observations of A.O. thus are indicative of non-application of mind. G) In submission made before

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,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, which is ignored by the Addl.CIT while granting such\nmechanical approval. He has not even cared that in the absence of required\nsatisfaction note“ for each year separately, entire assessment under section\n153C would be vitiated.\n60. In the present case before us, we noted that the Addl.CIT did not mention\nanything in the approval order passed under

YRCE EDUCATE PVT. LTD,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, which is ignored by the Addl.CIT while granting such\nmechanical approval. He has not even cared that in the absence of required\nsatisfaction note“ for each year separately, entire assessment under section\n153C would be vitiated.\n60. In the present case before us, we noted that the Addl.CIT did not mention\nanything in the approval order passed under

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,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

MRS. BEANT KAUR JUNEJA,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), NAGPUR

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 018/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Beantkaur Avtarsingh Juneja Hp Petrol Pump, Dosar Bhavan, C. A. Road, Nagpur-440002. Pan: Aflpj2956E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

68,859/. 2.3 Aggrieved assessee carried the matter in appeal before first appellate authority u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. While dealing with assessee’s appeal the Ld. NFAC provided as much as six opportunities from January, 2021 to March, 2022, however, the assessee failed to effectively establish the reasonable cause beyond delayed filing of TAR to the satisfaction

SHAIKH MAHMOOD SHAIKH CHANDA,ACHALPUR vs. ITO WARD-4, AMRAVATI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshaikh Mahmood Shaikh Chanda, 4, Ward No.4, Achalpur, Pathrot -444808, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Alipc0613Q V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward–4, ……………. Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Amravati-444601, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant respectfully craves leave and prefer an appeal under section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") against the order under section 250 dated 24/06/2025 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC ("referred to as Learned CIT(A)") against