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

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

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

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

section 153D\nwas granted in a mechanical manner and without application of mind and\nhence, it is treated as invalid and bad in law and consequently vitiated the\nassessment orders for want of valid approval under section 153D. In view of\nthe above discussion, we hold that the impugned order passed under\nsection 153C r/w section

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

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

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

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

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

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

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

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

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

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 the assessment order dated 27/12/2019 passed by the Learned AO National Faceless 2 Shaikh Mahmood Shaikh Chanda ITA no.541/NAG./2025 Assessment Centre, Delhi ("referred

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