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

142(1) of the Act, filed detailed submissions/reply along with connected documents as sought by the Assessing Officer in the above notice. 7. There was a search and seizure operation was also conducted under section 132(1) of the Act on RKTC Group, Korba, and Suresh Agrawal, Director of Rashi Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, on 22/01/2019, and thereafter

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

142(1) of the Act, filed detailed submissions/reply along with connected documents as sought by the Assessing Officer in the above notice. 7. There was a search and seizure operation was also conducted under section 132(1) of the Act on RKTC Group, Korba, and Suresh Agrawal, Director of Rashi Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, on 22/01/2019, and thereafter

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

142(1) of the Act, filed detailed submissions/reply along with connected documents as sought by the Assessing Officer in the above notice. 7. There was a search and seizure operation was also conducted under section 132(1) of the Act on RKTC Group, Korba, and Suresh Agrawal, Director of Rashi Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, on 22/01/2019, and thereafter

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

142(1) of the Act, filed detailed submissions/reply along with connected documents as sought by the Assessing Officer in the above notice. 7. There was a search and seizure operation was also conducted under section 132(1) of the Act on RKTC Group, Korba, and Suresh Agrawal, Director of Rashi Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, on 22/01/2019, and thereafter

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

142(1) of the Act, filed detailed submissions/reply along with connected documents as sought by the Assessing Officer in the above notice. 7. There was a search and seizure operation was also conducted under section 132(1) of the Act on RKTC Group, Korba, and Suresh Agrawal, Director of Rashi Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata, on 22/01/2019, and thereafter

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

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

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

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

142(1) of the Act along with a questionnaire was issued in response to which the assessee filed its submissions before the Assessing Officer. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of Oneworld group of cases on 06.11.2019. During

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON vs. RENUKA OIL INDUSTRIES, KHAMGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

142(1) of the Act issued and served on the assessee on 08/09/2014 in response to which the assessee furnished written submissions which were considered by the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer completed assessment determining total income of ` 47,99,885, as against returned income of ` 11,28,833, by making several additions viz. (i) additions under section 35AD

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

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

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

142(1) has also been issued to the assessee on 15/07/2016 alongwith reasons for re-opening of case. In response to notice the assessee has submitted the reply and raised objection for issuing of notice U/s. 148. The assessee encloses herewith copy of notice U/s. 148 and reasons alongwith objection reply, which is on Page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR vs. M/S. GUPTA METALLICS & POWER LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

bogus, the gross profit shown were notional with an intention to show higher turnover to obtain Bank Finance. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing officer to adjust various additions made in the assessment order against the income of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- surrendered by the assessee

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

142(1) has also been issued to the appellant on 15/07/2016 alongwith reasons for re-opening of case. In response to notice the appellant has submitted the reply and raised objection for issuing of notice U/s. 148. The appellant encloses herewith copy of notice U/s. 148 and reasons alongwith objection reply, which is on Page

JASIBAI DAYARAM AMLANI,AMRAVATI vs. DCIT AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

142(1) of the Act. Ld.AO in the course of assessment proceedings, apart from examining various issues, also observed that assessee has received rental income of 3 ITA.No.749/NAG/2025 (Jasibai Dayaram Amlani) ₹1,80,000/- p.a for 3000 sq.ft. located at Sundaram Tower, Sahakar Nagar, Amravati. Such rent was received from assessee’s son. Ld.AO based on the verification conducted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTAL CIRCLE -2(2) , NAGPUR vs. SHRI NARENDRA MAGANMAL KOTHARI , NAGPUR

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

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

142 and 143 clearly suggests that the assessing officer may also act on the material gathered by him and the word 'material' clearly shows that the assessing officer is not fettered by the technical rules of evidence and the like, and that he may act on material which may not strictly speaking be accepted evidence in court of law. xxxi

I.T.O. WARD -1, AMRAVATI vs. SHRI SANJAY NANASAHEB BHARSAKALE, AMRAVATI

In the result, the appeal of the department is rejected

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

142 of 2016] dated May 17, 2016 reported in 138 DTR 0361 (Cal.). “Income-Cash credits-Bogus liability-It appeared that nearly sum of Rs. 4 crores was found credited to books of accounts of assessee allegedly on account of advance received from buyers of motor cycles-AO was of opinion that bogus liability was created and AO, therefore, added