RAVINDRA MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE , AKOLA

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

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

35] 3.4 Therefore, the very fact that the loan was used for the purpose of the business of a related concern is quite evident. As the newly formed Private Limited company could not borrow more from for the financial institutions the only option available was to mobilize funds from the open market. However, as the Company Acts prohibit direct acceptance

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the A

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

TDS. We thus do not find reason to interfere with the first appellate order on the issue. The same is upheld. The issue is thus decided against the revenue. The above judicial pronouncement has also been followed by co- ordinate Bench of same (Pune) Tribunal in case of :- Jay Tuljabhavani Sah. Patpedhi Pragati V/s ITO (ITAT Pune) Relevant Para

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

ii) Bank Statement of Daksh Diamonds, (iii) IT return copy of Mr.Ritesh Siraya (Prop. Daksh Diamonds) for AY07-08, (iv) Financial of M/s Daksh Diamonds for AY07-08 (v) Ledger account of M/s Daksh Diamonds for the period 3-7-06 to 6-9-10 and (vi) P&L account, balance sheet and IT return of the appellant for AY07

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

ii) Bank Statement of Daksh Diamonds, (iii) IT return copy of Mr.Ritesh Siraya (Prop. Daksh Diamonds) for AY07-08, (iv) Financial of M/s Daksh Diamonds for AY07-08 (v) Ledger account of M/s Daksh Diamonds for the period 3-7-06 to 6-9-10 and (vi) P&L account, balance sheet and IT return of the appellant for AY07

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

ii) Bank Statement of Daksh Diamonds, (iii) IT return copy of Mr.Ritesh Siraya (Prop. Daksh Diamonds) for AY07-08, (iv) Financial of M/s Daksh Diamonds for AY07-08 (v) Ledger account of M/s Daksh Diamonds for the period 3-7-06 to 6-9-10 and (vi) P&L account, balance sheet and IT return of the appellant for AY07

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

ii) Bank Statement of Daksh Diamonds, (iii) IT return copy of Mr.Ritesh Siraya (Prop. Daksh Diamonds) for AY07-08, (iv) Financial of M/s Daksh Diamonds for AY07-08 (v) Ledger account of M/s Daksh Diamonds for the period 3-7-06 to 6-9-10 and (vi) P&L account, balance sheet and IT return of the appellant for AY07

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

ii) Bank Statement of Daksh Diamonds, (iii) IT return copy of Mr.Ritesh Siraya (Prop. Daksh Diamonds) for AY07-08, (iv) Financial of M/s Daksh Diamonds for AY07-08 (v) Ledger account of M/s Daksh Diamonds for the period 3-7-06 to 6-9-10 and (vi) P&L account, balance sheet and IT return of the appellant for AY07

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

ii) Bank Statement of Daksh Diamonds, (iii) IT return copy of Mr.Ritesh Siraya (Prop. Daksh Diamonds) for AY07-08, (iv) Financial of M/s Daksh Diamonds for AY07-08 (v) Ledger account of M/s Daksh Diamonds for the period 3-7-06 to 6-9-10 and (vi) P&L account, balance sheet and IT return of the appellant for AY07

SHAILESH CHAMPAKLAL VAKHARIA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (CENTRAL) CIRCLE - 1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

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

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") disclosing total income at ` 4,47,650. A gist of written submissions filed by the learned departmental representative are as under:– “The assessee has filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 u/s 139(1) of The Income

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

ii) Regarding the additions, the AR relied on CIT(A) order.” 7. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments made by the rival parties and perusing the material available on record, we now address the issues raised by the assessee on a point-wise basis. 8. Ground no.1, raised by the Revenue relates to admission of additional evidence under

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

ii) rw explanation 2 has not been fulfilled. I agree with the contention of the AR of the appellant that value of plant & machinery carried over from one year to another year does not mean that there was a transfer to new business of plant & machinery previously used far any purpose as contemplated by the said provision of section

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

ii) rw explanation 2 has not been fulfilled. I agree with the contention of the AR of the appellant that value of plant & machinery carried over from one year to another year does not mean that there was a transfer to new business of plant & machinery previously used far any purpose as contemplated by the said provision of section

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

ii) rw explanation 2 has not been fulfilled. I agree with the contention of the AR of the appellant that value of plant & machinery carried over from one year to another year does not mean that there was a transfer to new business of plant & machinery previously used far any purpose as contemplated by the said provision of section

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

ii) rw explanation 2 has not been fulfilled. I agree with the contention of the AR of the appellant that value of plant & machinery carried over from one year to another year does not mean that there was a transfer to new business of plant & machinery previously used far any purpose as contemplated by the said provision of section

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

ii) rw explanation 2 has not been fulfilled. I agree with the contention of the AR of the appellant that value of plant & machinery carried over from one year to another year does not mean that there was a transfer to new business of plant & machinery previously used far any purpose as contemplated by the said provision of section

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

ii) rw explanation 2 has not been fulfilled. I agree with the contention of the AR of the appellant that value of plant & machinery carried over from one year to another year does not mean that there was a transfer to new business of plant & machinery previously used far any purpose as contemplated by the said provision of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD -4, AMRAVATI vs. SHRI MAHESH SHANKAR SORATE , DARYAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

35,000 10.08.2012 Cash 41. – do – 1,14,000 11.08.2012 Cash 42. – do – 2,50,000 21.08.2012 Cash 43. – do – 50,000 23.08.2012 Cash 44. – do – 3,50,000 23.09.2012 Cash 45. – do – 2,00,000 04.10.2012 Cash 46. – do – 110,000 11.10.2012 Cash 47. – do – 1,50,000 13.10.2012 Cash 48. – do – 1,00,000 22.11.2012 Cash

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

TDS deducted and loan amount repaid. Onus to explain receipt of loan u/s 68 or u/s 69A has been satisfactorily discharged. No enquiry made by A.O. before making addition. Reliance on : i) (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom) Orient Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (P- 154 – 163) (54) ii) (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P&H) CIT vs. Varinder Rawlley

ASSISTANT COMISSIONER CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHRIGOPAL RAMESHKUMAR SALES PVT. LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS provisions as well as applicability of section 40A(3) so as to warrant any disallowance under those heads as per law. 18. That with respect to the addition of ` 16,42,713, it is the submission of the assessee that the said amount pertains to payments made by farmers/agriculturist to the labourers directly for unloading charges without any recourse