SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

iv) Pato Builders Ltd. v/s DCIT [2024] ITL 1042 (Ranchi) ITA no. 73/Ran./2021, order dated 29/02/2024; and v) Tirupati Buildcon Pvt.Ltd.v/s ACIT, ITA no.74/Jab./2024, order dated 28/06/2024 (Jabalpur–Trib.). 9. The learned Counsel for the assessee precisely raised the undernoted contentions in his meticulous arguments which are summarised below:– ―A) Order u/s 263 has been passed

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

17,247 /- (6) Tax Effect 1. Addition u/s 68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Original

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

17,247 /- (6) Tax Effect 1. Addition u/s 68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Original

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

17,247 /- (6) Tax Effect 1. Addition u/s 68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Original

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

17,247 /- (6) Tax Effect 1. Addition u/s 68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Original

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

17,247 /- (6) Tax Effect 1. Addition u/s 68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Original

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

17,247 /- (6) Tax Effect 1. Addition u/s 68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Original

DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR vs. GOPANI IRON AND POWER(INDIA) PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by revenue are rejected

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shrikhettra Mohan Roy

1) the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the open market", what is to be seen and (AYs. 2017-18, 18-19, 20-21 & 21-22) Dy. CIT vs. Gopani Iron and Power (India) Pvt. Ltd. tested with comparable is the price that the electricity generated by the eligible unit would ordinarily fetch in the open

DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR vs. GOPANI IRON AND POWER(INDIA) PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by revenue are rejected

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shrikhettra Mohan Roy

1) the price that such goods or services would ordinarily fetch in the open market", what is to be seen and (AYs. 2017-18, 18-19, 20-21 & 21-22) Dy. CIT vs. Gopani Iron and Power (India) Pvt. Ltd. tested with comparable is the price that the electricity generated by the eligible unit would ordinarily fetch in the open

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE , AKOLA vs. AKOLA URBAN CO-OPRATIVE BANK LTD , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

iv) a subsidiary bank; or (iva) a multi–State co-operative bank; or] (v) such other bank which the Central Government may, by notification, specify for the purposes of this Act; 4. Ins. by Act 1 of 2013, s. 2 (w.e.f. 15-1-2013)." 5.3.1 Further, as per section 5 of the above referred Act: "5. Acquisition of rights

ITO, WARD-6(1),, NAGPUR vs. THE VIDARBHA PREMIER CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY,, NAGPUR

In the result these appeals by the assessee and revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

iv) We have not made a single transaction of loan as allege in your above said letter but we simply give credit facility to members only for acquiring residential house. v) To say that the assessee society does not provide credit facility to its members would be travesty of reality when one reads the accounts of the society

THE VIDHARBHA PREMIER CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,,NAGPUR vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, RANGE-6, NAGPUR

In the result these appeals by the assessee and revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

iv) We have not made a single transaction of loan as allege in your above said letter but we simply give credit facility to members only for acquiring residential house. v) To say that the assessee society does not provide credit facility to its members would be travesty of reality when one reads the accounts of the society

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

1. – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub-section (a) ……. (b) …… (c) Where any order referred to in this sub-section and passed by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be had been subject matter of any appeal filed on or before after