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

34,115/- during the previous year relevant to Asstt. Year 2014-2015 and shown book profit at Rs. 2,79,05,115/-. Since the period of holding of the shares is more than one year the capital gain transaction were long term capital of the assessee and exempted U/s. 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee

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

34. Judgment of ITAT, Mumbai Bench “C”, Mumbai vide ITA No. 6108/MUM/2009 in case of ChandrakantBabulal Shah –Vs.- The Assessing Officer, Ward-16 (2)4, Mumbai In view of the above assessee humbly request that claimed made by the assessee is true and correct and same may kindly be allowed.” Ground No. 10 &11 : The assessee has made investment

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

10. We further noticed that the Assessing Officer has primarily placed reliance on the report given by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, Kolkata to arrive at the conclusion that the long term capital gain reported by the assessee is bogus in nature. We further noticed that the Investigation Report prepared by Investigation Wing, Kolkata is general

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. We further noticed that the Assessing Officer has primarily placed reliance on the report given by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, Kolkata to arrive at the conclusion that the long term capital gain reported by the assessee is bogus in nature. We further noticed that the Investigation Report prepared by Investigation Wing, Kolkata is general

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

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

34 to 36 of the paper book. 5. The appellant also draw support from the Judgment of the Jaipur Tribunal in the case of Ram Das Maheshwari Vs PCIT, enclosed on page 5 to 27 of the Paper book. In this case, the appeal was filed against the penalty levied under section 271AAB. A penalty of 10% was levied

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

34) (Gist) N) CIT(A) at para 5.2 has referred to screenshot of news paper dated 05/02/2020. At para 5.3 on the basis of online search of extract of the judgement of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of M/s Dadhichi Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. concluded that there is bogus purchase from the said concern and assessee

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

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

purchase of land treated unexplained ` 4,42,000 (xi) Total:- ` 8,06,23,989 4 Shree Agarwal Finance India Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.176/Nag./2016 The assessee being aggrieved by the additions so made by the Assessing Officer carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 4. During the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) considering the facts of the case

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

34,11,724, after making addition of ` 7.50 crore on account of 3 Vidarbha Infotech Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.76/Nag./2024 unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act and ` 20,67,364, on account of difference under section 69C of the Act. 5. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made following submissions:– “The appellant submitted the written submission which

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

34,325/ earned by the assessee without considering the fact that Kolkata Investigation Wing has thoroughly investigated and proven the modus operandi of conversion of unaccounted income to counted one through penny stock by claiming bogus LTCG and STCG Loss." 10. How the case of the appellant is not covered by investigation report of the DDIT Inv Kolkata

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

34,325/ earned by the assessee without considering the fact that Kolkata Investigation Wing has thoroughly investigated and proven the modus operandi of conversion of unaccounted income to counted one through penny stock by claiming bogus LTCG and STCG Loss." 10. How the case of the appellant is not covered by investigation report of the DDIT Inv Kolkata

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

34,325/ earned by the assessee without considering the fact that Kolkata Investigation Wing has thoroughly investigated and proven the modus operandi of conversion of unaccounted income to counted one through penny stock by claiming bogus LTCG and STCG Loss." 10. How the case of the appellant is not covered by investigation report of the DDIT Inv Kolkata

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

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD(EAELIER KNOWN AS GUPTA COALFIELDS & WASHHERIES LTD), NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

bogus entities through D.P. Sarda and other brokers to launder its unaccounted money in the form of share application money and share premium. 9. While perusing the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue, we observe that the Ld. CIT(A) is silent regarding the discrepancies pointed out by the Assessing Officer. Without going any enquiry or remand

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD(EAELIER KNOWN AS GUPTA COALFIELDS 7 WASHHERIES LTD), NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

bogus entities through D.P. Sarda and other brokers to launder its unaccounted money in the form of share application money and share premium. 9. While perusing the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue, we observe that the Ld. CIT(A) is silent regarding the discrepancies pointed out by the Assessing Officer. Without going any enquiry or remand

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA COAL(INDIA) LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

bogus entities through D.P. Sarda and other brokers to launder its unaccounted money in the form of share application money and share premium. 9. While perusing the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue, we observe that the Ld. CIT(A) is silent regarding the discrepancies pointed out by the Assessing Officer. Without going any enquiry or remand

ASSTT.C,I,.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA COALFIELDS & WASHERIES LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

bogus entities through D.P. Sarda and other brokers to launder its unaccounted money in the form of share application money and share premium. 9. While perusing the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue, we observe that the Ld. CIT(A) is silent regarding the discrepancies pointed out by the Assessing Officer. Without going any enquiry or remand

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD(EAELIER KNOWN AS GUPTA COALFIELDS & WASHHERIES LTD), NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

bogus entities through D.P. Sarda and other brokers to launder its unaccounted money in the form of share application money and share premium. 9. While perusing the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue, we observe that the Ld. CIT(A) is silent regarding the discrepancies pointed out by the Assessing Officer. Without going any enquiry or remand