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

bogus and non-genuine, the AO was required to disallow 60% of the total URD purchases of Rs. 5.10 crore instead of limiting the disallowance to the purchases in respect of the aforesaid 8 parties examined by her. In this view of the matter, the order dated 30.12.2011 passed by the AO is erroneous. Further, as the same has resulted

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

bogus accommodation entries to various beneficiaries. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued to the assessee on 2 25.06.2021. Subsequently, in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Ashish Agarwal vide Civil Appeal No.3005/2022, order dated

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

142(1) were issued to the assessee. In response to notices, the counsel for the assessee attended from time to time and submitted the details called and explained the return. The assessee had purchased 422500 shares of Swift IT Infrastructure & Services Limited (SITSL) on 16/03/2012 physically at the rate of Rs. 10/- and same were duly reflected in the books

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 purchase. The learned CIT(A) in Para–5.1.4 to 5.1.5 has held as under:– Alfiya Ayazali Sayyad ITA no.206/Nag./2022 3.1.4. The views similar to the above decision of Delhi and Kerala High Courts were expressed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar 232 ITR 588 (Alld.). Similarly, the Delhi High Court

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. Therefore, on the facts of case and in absence of displacing the finding of the CIT(A) and the fact that the assessee showed profit from these transactions, there is no such error in the order of the CIT(A) which requires correction. Respectfully following the above decisions, facts of the case and the evidence avialable on record

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. Therefore, on the facts of case and in absence of displacing the finding of the CIT(A) and the fact that the assessee showed profit from these transactions, there is no such error in the order of the CIT(A) which requires correction. Respectfully following the above decisions, facts of the case and the evidence avialable on record

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. Therefore, on the facts of case and in absence of displacing the finding of the CIT(A) and the fact that the assessee showed profit from these transactions, there is no such error in the order of the CIT(A) which requires correction. Respectfully following the above decisions, facts of the case and the evidence avialable on record

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. Therefore, on the facts of case and in absence of displacing the finding of the CIT(A) and the fact that the assessee showed profit from these transactions, there is no such error in the order of the CIT(A) which requires correction. Respectfully following the above decisions, facts of the case and the evidence avialable on record

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. Therefore, on the facts of case and in absence of displacing the finding of the CIT(A) and the fact that the assessee showed profit from these transactions, there is no such error in the order of the CIT(A) which requires correction. Respectfully following the above decisions, facts of the case and the evidence avialable on record

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. Therefore, on the facts of case and in absence of displacing the finding of the CIT(A) and the fact that the assessee showed profit from these transactions, there is no such error in the order of the CIT(A) which requires correction. Respectfully following the above decisions, facts of the case and the evidence avialable on record

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. Therefore, on the facts of case and in absence of displacing the finding of the CIT(A) and the fact that the assessee showed profit from these transactions, there is no such error in the order of the CIT(A) which requires correction. Respectfully following the above decisions, facts of the case and the evidence avialable on record

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. Therefore, on the facts of case and in absence of displacing the finding of the CIT(A) and the fact that the assessee showed profit from these transactions, there is no such error in the order of the CIT(A) which requires correction. Respectfully following the above decisions, facts of the case and the evidence avialable on record

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. Therefore, on the facts of case and in absence of displacing the finding of the CIT(A) and the fact that the assessee showed profit from these transactions, there is no such error in the order of the CIT(A) which requires correction. Respectfully following the above decisions, facts of the case and the evidence avialable on record

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. Therefore, on the facts of case and in absence of displacing the finding of the CIT(A) and the fact that the assessee showed profit from these transactions, there is no such error in the order of the CIT(A) which requires correction. Respectfully following the above decisions, facts of the case and the evidence avialable on record

ASTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIR 2(3) R, NAGPUR vs. M GUPTA COALFIELDS & WASHERIES LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

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

bogus. Therefore, on the facts of case and in absence of displacing the finding of the CIT(A) and the fact that the assessee showed profit from these transactions, there is no such error in the order of the CIT(A) which requires correction. Respectfully following the above decisions, facts of the case and the evidence avialable on record

DAYAL COTSPIN LIMITED,AKOLA vs. ACIT, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

142(1) of the Act during the regular assessment framed under section 143(3) of Act. All corporate shareholders were assessed to income tax and transactions of subscription of share capital were through proper banking channel. Regular assessment was framed under 3 Dayal Cotspin Ltd. section 143(3) of the Act, on 23/03/2015, by accepting share capital contribution and income

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

142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served upon the assessee. Ld.Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that assessee had declared long term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs.1,32,68,850/- and claimed the same as being exempt u/s 10(38) of Act in respect to sale of shares of M/s.GCM Securities Ltd. Assessee purchased 24000 shares of M/s.GCM Securities

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

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

142(1) were issued to the assessee. In response to notices, the counsel for the assessee attended from time to time and submitted the details called and explained the return. The assessee had purchased 422500 shares of Swift IT Infrastructure & Services Limited (SITSL) on 16/03/2012 physically at the rate of Rs. 10/- and same were duly reflected in the books

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

142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served upon the assessee. Ld.Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee had declared long term capital gains (LTCG) of Rs.1,32,17,000/- and claimed the same as being exempt u/s 10(38) of Act in respect to shares of M/s. GCM Securities Ltd. Assessee purchased 24000 shares