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

natural justice. 28 Shri Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani ITA no.410/Nag./2019 A.Y. 2014–15 The assessment order was passed and additions were made merely on the basis of certain information received from the investigation wing of IT Department without application of mind by the ld. A.O. and without establishing a link between the information received and the captioned transaction

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

bogus merely on the basis of doubts and aspersions.\n7.6 Thus, in view of the above facts and submissions which are supported by legal evidences and the case law reflected by the assessee as detailed in Para 7.4 above, it is held that the assessment was completed without following the principles of natural justice and the entire addition were made

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

natural justice to the assesse. f. Notwithstanding above, the investigation report prepared by DCIT (Inv), Unit II (3), Kolkata dated 27.4.2015 is further distinguishable on facts enumerated as under which clearly shows that findings recorded in investigation report is itself not applicable ab initio in case of the assessee: xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 8. Thus, based

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

natural justice to the assesse. f. Notwithstanding above, the investigation report prepared by DCIT (Inv), Unit II (3), Kolkata dated 27.4.2015 is further distinguishable on facts enumerated as under which clearly shows that findings recorded in investigation report is itself not applicable ab initio in case of the assessee: xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 8. Thus, based

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

natural justice to the assesse. f. Notwithstanding above, the investigation report prepared by DCIT (Inv), Unit II (3), Kolkata dated 27.4.2015 is further distinguishable on facts enumerated as under which clearly shows that findings recorded in investigation report is itself not applicable ab initio in case of the assessee: xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 8. Thus, based

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

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

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

natural justice and liable to be deleted as per law and in the interest of justice. 5) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the entire purchases amounting to Rs. 2,90,16,000 allegedly held to be bogus

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 purchases under section 69C of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned AO erred in making the disallowance based on suspicions and surmises without considering the documentary evidences filed in support of genuineness of purchases and without doubting the corresponding sales. 5. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned AO erred

ITO, WARD- 1)1), NAGPUR vs. AXYKNO ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

justice by not M/s. Axykno Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.47/Nag./2019 providing opportunity of cross examination, whereas the addition was not merely based on statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. c. Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in appreciating the facts mentioned by AO in Para 7 that in normal human probability, no company will invest with such hefty premium

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

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

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

justice. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2 M/s. Unijules Life Sciences Ltd. 2,90,16,000 treating the purchases made by the Appellant to that extent as bogus purchases which is illegal and the addition

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

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

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

justice. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2 M/s. Unijules Life Sciences Ltd. A.Y. 2015–16 2,90,16,000 treating the purchases made by the Appellant to that extent as bogus purchases which is illegal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

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

purchases as bogus u/s 69C. I, therefore, hold that the impugned addition is not sustainable in law also.” The Revenue being aggrieved is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee has not filed any details before the Assessing Officer and the expenditure incurred by the assessee is bogus in nature. He further submitted

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

purchases Coal from South Eastern Coal Fields, Gevra- Dipka- Korba (CG) and sell the same to various parties. However, the details of return of income filed under section 139(1) and under section 153A for the assessment year 2014–15 to 2016-17 are given as under:– Due date Income ROI filed Income ROI filed for issue returned under returned

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

purchases Coal from South Eastern Coal Fields, Gevra- Dipka- Korba (CG) and sell the same to various parties. However, the details of return of income filed under section 139(1) and under section 153A for the assessment year 2014–15 to 2016-17 are given as under:– Due date Income ROI filed Income ROI filed for issue returned under returned

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

purchases Coal from South Eastern Coal Fields, Gevra- Dipka- Korba (CG) and sell the same to various parties. However, the details of return of income filed under section 139(1) and under section 153A for the assessment year 2014–15 to 2016-17 are given as under:– Due date Income ROI filed Income ROI filed for issue returned under returned

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

purchases Coal from South Eastern Coal Fields, Gevra- Dipka- Korba (CG) and sell the same to various parties. However, the details of return of income filed under section 139(1) and under section 153A for the assessment year 2014–15 to 2016-17 are given as under:– Due date Income ROI filed Income ROI filed for issue returned under returned

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

purchases Coal from South Eastern Coal Fields, Gevra- Dipka- Korba (CG) and sell the same to various parties. However, the details of return of income filed under section 139(1) and under section 153A for the assessment year 2014–15 to 2016-17 are given as under:– Due date Income ROI filed Income ROI filed for issue returned under returned

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

purchases Coal from South Eastern Coal Fields, Gevra- Dipka- Korba (CG) and sell the same to various parties. However, the details of return of income filed under section 139(1) and under section 153A for the assessment year 2014–15 to 2016-17 are given as under:– Due date Income ROI filed Income ROI filed for issue returned under returned

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

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

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

purchase of assets allegedly held bogus which is illegal, and which deserves to be deleted as per law. 6) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 60,00,000 representing unaccounted income which is illegal, and which deserves

CIAN AGRO INDUSTRIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

bogus in nature by the Assessing Officer. Further, the learned CIT(A) has also observed that the assessee failed to discharge his onus cast on him to prove the genuineness of the purchases. It is manifest that there was no participation by the assessee before the appellate authority. These fact reveals that the issue remained to be examined