VGI MARKETING DIVISION,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, AKOLA

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

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

Income Tax (Appeals)–55, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2011–12. 2. The core issue raised by the assessee is, whether or not the learned CIT(A) was justified in upholding the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchase

SHRI PRANAV NALIN MEHTA ,NAGPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, NAGPUR , NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.28/Nag/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pranav Nalin Mehta, Pr.Cit-1, Prop. M/S. Regal Marbles & Minerals, Vs. Nagpur 101, 1St Floor, Ramdeobaba Apartment, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur 440 010 Pan : Acdpm8305P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani Revenue By : Shri Kailash Kanojiya

income on this score, being, the gross profit @8.10% on the unsubstantiated purchases of Rs.6,37,988/-. In his opinion, the addition ought to have been made for the full amount of purchases at Rs.6,37,988/-. That is how, he set-aside the assessment order by treating it as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue directing

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

addition of Rs. 5,60,75,185/- made by AO on sale proceeds of the share u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, without appreciating the fact that as per investigation done by income tax Department (Inv), Kolkata dated 27.04.2015, the name of the assessee featured in the list of the persons who have availed bogus LTCG and exemption

ALFIYA AYAZALI SAYYAD,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

bogus purchases of Rs.1,49,43,240. That penalty cannot be levied when the addition has been made on estimated basis. 4. The Appellant prays leave of the Hon'ble Tribunal to add, amend, alter any of the Grounds of Appeal.” 3. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 303 days

SUBHASH BADRIPRASAD SHAHU,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(3), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesubhash Badriprasad Shahu, Plot No.84, Near Annapurna Dall Mill, Bagad Ganj, Small Factory Area ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 008. Maharashtra. Pan – Agqps9660N V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(3), Nagpur Assessee By :Shri. Abhay Agrawal.A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

bogus under section 69C of the Act. Whereas, the learned A.R. substantiated that the transactions are genuine and also submitted in the Paper Book highlighting the purchase bills, purchase register / sales register, stock, transportation bills referred in Page–16 to 39 of the Paper Book. The learned A.R’s contention that the assessee has already offered the purchases for income

RAJESH SARDA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Rajesh Sarda, Acit, Central Circle – 2(2), Nagpur 14, Daga Lay–Out, Ambazari Road, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440033. Maharashtra – 440001. [Pan: Ahaps4925M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

purchase of shares, the addition was deleted. Further I find of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Indravadan Jain, HUF in Income Tax Appeal No.454 of 2018 dated 12.07.2023 also held that when AO nowhere alleged that transactions made by assessee with a particular broker or share broker was bogus

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

addition of Rs. 2,84,35,115/- made by AO on sale proceeds of the share u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, without appreciating the fact that as per investigation done by Income tax Department (Inv), Kolkata dated 27.04.2015, the name of the assessee featured in the list of the persons who have availed bogus LTCG and exemption

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

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

bogus. Therefore, it was mandatory for the Revenue to produce A for cross-examination by the assessee on their specific demand in this regard. There may well be instances 18 M/s. N. Kumar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year 2012–13 where the reopening may pass muster in light of some facts, but those facts by themselves may turn

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

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

bogus. Therefore, it was mandatory for the Revenue to produce A for cross-examination by the appellant on their specific demand in this regard. There may well be instances where the reopening may pass muster in light of some facts, but those facts 21 M/s. N. Kumar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2010–11 by themselves may turn

ZIM LABORATORIES LIMITED ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

purchase of Air Handling Unit by the appellant is a non-genuine or bogus transaction. The appellant has submitted that no addition can be made to appellant's income

ZIM LABORATORIES LIMITED ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

purchase of Air Handling Unit by the appellant is a non-genuine or bogus transaction. The appellant has submitted that no addition can be made to appellant's income

ZIM LABORATORIES LIMITED ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

purchase of Air Handling Unit by the appellant is a non-genuine or bogus transaction. The appellant has submitted that no addition can be made to appellant's income

M/S. UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Unijules Life Sciences The Assistant Ltd., V Commissioner Of Income B-35/36, Midc, S Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Kamleshwar, Nagpur. Nagpur – 441501 Pan: Aaacu8032D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Adv.-Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Nagpur Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 08.11.2011 For The A.Y.2012-13 Emanating From The Order Under Section 153A R.W.S 143(3) Of M/S.Unijule Life Sciences Ltd., [A]

bogus purchases vide its 3 M/s.Unijule Life Sciences Ltd., [A] order passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) dated 30.03.2016. for the year under consideration. 2) Cash expenses have been added on the basis of document found at the time of search and seizure. 3) Depreciation disallowed. 4) Any other additional point can be taken at any later point of time

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

purchasers of the flats. It is beyond the concept of preponderance and human probabilities that a businessman has ventured into a commercial venture only to make loos. [iv] Although such amended provision from 01.10.2014 with reference to Valuation Officer does not require rejection of books of accounts, but there must be some compelling circumstances to refer the valuation particularly when

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

purchasers of the flats. It is beyond the concept of preponderance and human probabilities that a businessman has ventured into a commercial venture only to make loos. [iv] Although such amended provision from 01.10.2014 with reference to Valuation Officer does not require rejection of books of accounts, but there must be some compelling circumstances to refer the valuation particularly when

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

purchasers of the flats. It is beyond the concept of preponderance and human probabilities that a businessman has ventured into a commercial venture only to make loos. [iv] Although such amended provision from 01.10.2014 with reference to Valuation Officer does not require rejection of books of accounts, but there must be some compelling circumstances to refer the valuation particularly when

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

purchasers of the flats. It is beyond the concept of preponderance and human probabilities that a businessman has ventured into a commercial venture only to make loos. [iv] Although such amended provision from 01.10.2014 with reference to Valuation Officer does not require rejection of books of accounts, but there must be some compelling circumstances to refer the valuation particularly when

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

purchasers of the flats. It is beyond the concept of preponderance and human probabilities that a businessman has ventured into a commercial venture only to make loos. [iv] Although such amended provision from 01.10.2014 with reference to Valuation Officer does not require rejection of books of accounts, but there must be some compelling circumstances to refer the valuation particularly when

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

purchasers of the flats. It is beyond the concept of preponderance and human probabilities that a businessman has ventured into a commercial venture only to make loos. [iv] Although such amended provision from 01.10.2014 with reference to Valuation Officer does not require rejection of books of accounts, but there must be some compelling circumstances to refer the valuation particularly when