SHETKARI SOLVENT (INDIA) LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT C.C. 1(1), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.137/Nag/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007–08 Shetkari Solvent (India) Ltd., Ug–7&8, Jagat Chambers, Near Ambedkar Sqr, Central Avenue, Bagadganj, Nagpur–440008. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aabcs0105N बनाम / V/S. Acit, Central Circle–1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. Assessee By : Shri Abhay Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri U. U. Kasar, Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Nagpur Dated 11.01.2012 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Revised Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :– “1. That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.5,79,60,000 On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases Of Soya Doc

section 153C of the act itself is invalid and bad in law. Without prejudice, only profit embedded in alleged bogus purchases can be subjected to tax 5. Without prejudice, the Assessee submits that in case the corresponding sales have not been doubted, then the entire purchases cannot be disallowed but only the profit embedded in the purchases be subjected

M/S SHREE SAIBABA CONSTRUCTION,,NAGPUR vs. CIT-IV,, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 143(3) of the Act, determining total income of ` 1,47,98,682. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has debited expenses of Rs. 5,10,46,326 under the head “URD purchase”. Out of these purchases, the Assessing Officer had examined purchases of ` 1,01,57,105 in detail and found that 60% of these were bogus

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

section 10(38) were being misused by the beneficiaries of bogus long term capital gain and to avoid paying taxes and have also been forwarded the details of transactions entered into by the assessee. The learned assessing officer has not any provided the details forwarded by Investigation Wing, Kolkatta as well as statement of persons, whose statement were recorded during

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

section 10(38) were being misused by the beneficiaries of bogus long term capital gain and to avoid paying taxes and have also been forwarded the details of transactions entered into by the assessee. The learned assessing officer has not any provided the details forwarded by Investigation Wing, Kolkatta as well as statement of persons, whose statement were recorded during

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. SHIKHA INDRAKUMAR AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 10(38) of the Act cannot be held to be bogus on the basis of presumption in absence of any evidence brought on record by the assessee with regard to shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd, which is not even found to be rigged by the SEBI also. The Tribunal has also considered that the assessee held the shares

DCIT-CC-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. INDRAKUMAR GHISULAL AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

10(38) of the Act. The Ld. AO concluded the assessment holding that transactions in the purchase and sale of shares are treated as bogus and sham and the entire amount of LTCG of Rs.1,32,68,850/- on sale of shares of M/s GCM Securities Ltd. is disallowed u/s 68 of the Act 1961 and added to total income

M/S SHREE PALSIDDHA CONSTRUCTION,BULDHANA vs. PRINCIPAL C.I.T. -1,, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Shree Palsiddha Construction Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Sakharkheda, Nagpur. Taluka Sindhkhedraja, Buldhana-443202. Pan No.: Ablfs 9009 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Nagpur Dated 08/03/2017 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Pcit Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 & Thereby Setting Aside Order Passed By Assessing Officer 2. Assessee Craves Leave To Add & Alter Any Other Ground That May Be Taken At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor. Return Of Income Was Filed On 03/12/2009 Declaring Total Income Of 2

10%. The Hon'ble Bench highlighting provisions of section 204(3) of the scheme held that every order passed under section 204(2) of the scheme shall be conclusive as to the matter stated therein and no matter covered by such order shall be re-opened in any other proceedings under the Act or wealth tax act for time being

SUNRISE STRUCTURALS & ENGINEERING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roysunrise Structural & Acit/Dcit, Circle-4, Engineering P. Ltd., A10, Vs Nagpur Hingna Midc, Nagpur (Urban), Nagpur-440016 Pan : Aaccs 3220 M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R

10. It is noted that sales made by assessee in respect to goods purchased from M/s.Dadhichi Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. were claimed to have been sold to M/s Sanvijay Rolling & Engineering Ltd. Documentary evidence placed on record indicates that goods purchased were directly sold to M/s Sanvijay Rolling & Engineering 16 Ltd. It has been booked in the books of account

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

10% of total alleged 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

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

section 10(38). The AO prepared summary of working of capital gain in respect of both the scrips. The AO recorded that assessee purchased 40000 share of Premier Capital Services Ltd. in August, 2012 and sold the same scrip during May and June, 2014 and have shown capital gain of `. 8.42 crore. Similarly, for Kailash Auto Finance

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 under section 69C." In the case of CIT v. Bhagwati Developers Pvt. Ltd. [2003] 261 ITR 658 (Cal.) it is held that if the source of the expenditure is explained section 69C has no applicability. It is also respectfully submitted that the addition u/s. 69C has been made merely on suspicion and conjectures without refuting any facts

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. VIDHARBHA BAHUUDESHIYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2017-18

purchase / bogus sale transactions with various entities controlled and managed by Shri Rajesh G. Mehta. During the course of recording of his statement on oath, Shri Rajesh G. Mehta also provided the details of entities controlled and managed by him and the company M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd, was one of the entities controlled and managed by Shri Rajesh G. Mehta

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

10, 2013–14 and assessee’s cross objection for the A.Y. 2012–13 are dismissed as withdrawn. 3 Zim Laboratories Ltd. 4. As far as Revenue’s appeal being ITA no.130/Nag./2018, for A.Y. 2012– 13 is concerned, the Revenue has raised following grounds:– “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

10, 2013–14 and assessee’s cross objection for the A.Y. 2012–13 are dismissed as withdrawn. 3 Zim Laboratories Ltd. 4. As far as Revenue’s appeal being ITA no.130/Nag./2018, for A.Y. 2012– 13 is concerned, the Revenue has raised following grounds:– “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

10, 2013–14 and assessee’s cross objection for the A.Y. 2012–13 are dismissed as withdrawn. 3 Zim Laboratories Ltd. 4. As far as Revenue’s appeal being ITA no.130/Nag./2018, for A.Y. 2012– 13 is concerned, the Revenue has raised following grounds:– “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

ASSTT. CIT, CIR- 7, NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEWQUEST CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

bogus. 5.3 As stated in the submission of the appellant, the word 'sham' has been defined as "being good in appearing but false infact", The Ld. AO has not sought to clarify as to what is the falsity invoked the transaction entered into by the appellant. None of the transaction entered ir.to by the appellant are illegal or done with

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

Section 68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of Stock Exchange. The ITAT therefore

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

Section 68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of Stock Exchange. The ITAT therefore

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

Section 68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of Stock Exchange. The ITAT therefore