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

143(3) read with section 153C of the act itself is invalid and bad in law. Without prejudice, only profit embedded in alleged bogus purchases

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

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

purchase bills and that the assessee M/s. Axykno Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.47/Nag./2019 is one of the many beneficiaries of the business of accommodation entries run by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. In view of this, a proposal under section 263 of the Act was sent by the Assessing Officer to the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax–1, Nagpur

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

section 148 of the Act was issued on 29/03/2017, after recording reasons for escapement of income. The reasons recorded for issuance of notice, as provided to the assessee are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:– “2. The reason recorded for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2012-13 is given below:- “Reasons recorded

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

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

143(1) of the Act. Later, on the information received from Insight portal and Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) regarding bogus purchases from M/s. Dadhichi Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., proceedings u/s 148A were initiated and notice u/s 148 was issued. In response, assessee filed it return declaring same loss as declared in original return of income. During the course

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

Section 143 of the Act, the AO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than mere suspicion in support of any disallowance of expenditure. In this peculiar fact the AO was not justified in estimating the 29 Smt. AanjuSaraf disallowance

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

Section 143 of the Act, the AO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than mere suspicion in support of any disallowance of expenditure. In this peculiar fact the AO was not justified in estimating the 29 Smt. AanjuSaraf disallowance

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

Section 143 of the Act, the AO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than mere suspicion in support of any disallowance of expenditure. In this peculiar fact the AO was not justified in estimating the 29 Smt. AanjuSaraf disallowance

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

Section 143 of the Act, the AO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than mere suspicion in support of any disallowance of expenditure. In this peculiar fact the AO was not justified in estimating the 29 Smt. AanjuSaraf disallowance

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

Section 143 of the Act, the AO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than mere suspicion in support of any disallowance of expenditure. In this peculiar fact the AO was not justified in estimating the 29 Smt. AanjuSaraf disallowance

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

Section 143 of the Act, the AO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than mere suspicion in support of any disallowance of expenditure. In this peculiar fact the AO was not justified in estimating the 29 Smt. AanjuSaraf disallowance

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

bogus purchases should be restricted only to gross profit, have been widely taken by the Judiciary across India. For sake of easy reference, we have enclosed the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Mohommad Haji Adam & Co (BOM)(HC) dated addition was restricted-to the Gross profit. 11/02/2019, where the (Said judgment

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

bogus transactions and there is neither name of assessee nor name of the company “Parag Shilpa Infrastructure Ltd.” in the entire report. As per Para 4.6, the assessing officer stated that “the assessee has purchased the share of M/s. PSIT Infrastructure Ltd. for a very low price”. The assessee has actually not purchased PS IT Infrastructure shares, but assessee