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

42,757 ` 2,68,490 5. The issue involved in ground no.3, 4, 5 and 6, in the assessment year 2014–15, relates to the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit 3 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 under section 68 of the Act. The grounds no.3 to 6, are reproduced below

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

42,757 ` 2,68,490 5. The issue involved in ground no.3, 4, 5 and 6, in the assessment year 2014–15, relates to the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit 3 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 under section 68 of the Act. The grounds no.3 to 6, are reproduced below

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

42,757 ` 2,68,490 5. The issue involved in ground no.3, 4, 5 and 6, in the assessment year 2014–15, relates to the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit 3 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 under section 68 of the Act. The grounds no.3 to 6, are reproduced below

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

42,757 ` 2,68,490 5. The issue involved in ground no.3, 4, 5 and 6, in the assessment year 2014–15, relates to the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit 3 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 under section 68 of the Act. The grounds no.3 to 6, are reproduced below

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

42,757 ` 2,68,490 5. The issue involved in ground no.3, 4, 5 and 6, in the assessment year 2014–15, relates to the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit 3 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 under section 68 of the Act. The grounds no.3 to 6, are reproduced below

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

42,757 ` 2,68,490 5. The issue involved in ground no.3, 4, 5 and 6, in the assessment year 2014–15, relates to the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit 3 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 under section 68 of the Act. The grounds no.3 to 6, are reproduced below

YOGESH NANDALAL CHANDE,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-1, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 139(1) of the Act thereby dismissing assessee’s appeal directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of TDS credit of ` 14,93,947, on the salary income offered by the assessee amounting to ` 31,73,253, which was duly reflected in Form no.26AS. The assessee being aggrieved, by the order so passed by the learned

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

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 49. – do – 3,00,000 16.11.2012 Cash 50. – do – 30,000 17.11.2012 Cash

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

section 68 only sets up a presumption against the assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of account of the assessee. It cannot but be again said that the presumption is rebuttable. In refuting the presumption raised, the initial burden is on the assessee. This burden, which is placed on the assessee, shifts as soon as the assessee

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

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

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

TDS, details of Bank Accounts and details of various other expenses, etc. The appellant through his AR explained the case from time to time. From the documents submitted and 4 The Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co–operative Society Ltd. A.Y. 2012–13 explanations provided by the appellant, the AO notices that the appellant had earned interest income from Fixed Deposits with

SHRIRAM DADAJI MATTE,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

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

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

42,51,412, liability on loans. The Assessing Officer while relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mzxopp Investment Ltd. and the CBDT’s Circular no.5/20174 dated 11/02/2014. 6. The assessee being aggrieved, filed appeal before the learned

SHRIRAM DADAJI MATTE,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

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

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

42,51,412, liability on loans. The Assessing Officer while relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mzxopp Investment Ltd. and the CBDT’s Circular no.5/20174 dated 11/02/2014. 6. The assessee being aggrieved, filed appeal before the learned

AKSHAY GAJANAN SURYAWANSHI DESHMUKH,CHIKHLI vs. ITO WARD-2, KHAMGAON

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

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

42,06,636/-even though after considering the closing stock no such amount is claimed for determining income at the hands of assessee, resulting into unjustified addition. 3 Akshay Gajanan Suryawanshi Deshmukh ITA no.385/Nag./2024 10) Addition made by A.O. in respect to TCS amount at Rs.5,19,653/- is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 11) The learned A.O. erred

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON vs. RENUKA OIL INDUSTRIES, KHAMGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

42,320 and investment in Plants & Equipment Rs.14.04.783) in both original as well as revised (though invalid) ITR/Audit report, not making claim of depreciation alternatively allowable u/s 32 on the capital expenditure incurred by the appellant on construction of the Warehouse in accordance with section 35AD(4), not disputing the factum or quantum (except disallowance of construction expenses

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

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

42,28,108 The assessee being aggrieved by the issuance of the assessment order so passed by the Assessing Officer, is in appeal before the first appellate authority. 3 Shree Agarwal Coal India Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.19/Nag./2016 4. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed additional ground challenging that the impugned assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR vs. M/S UNITED BUILDERS , BHANDARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

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

42,171. In order to verify the genuineness of sub-contract payments, the assessee was asked to substantiate the genuineness of payment made to the sub-contractors along with their complete address, copy of ITR, bank statement indicating the respective payment. In response the assessee, inter alia, submitted the statement of the subcontractors showing details of payment, address

ADILOK VIDYALAYA BODUNDA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4), BHANDARA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara

TDS, Ghaziabad [for short "AO" ] for the asesment year s [for short "AY" ] 201 3 - 1 4 to 201 6 - 1 7 . 2. T his seks to adjudicate t he isue of authorisation of levy of fes u/s 234E for default in furnishing statement u/s 20(3) in the absence of enabling provision. 3. Since the facts and isue involved