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 purchases. 3. Meanwhile, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax invoked his powers under section 263 of the Act, called for the assessment records of the assessee for the impugned assessment year and after scrutinizing the same, was of the view that the assessment order 3 M/s. Shree Saibaba Construction passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous

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

bogus purchases. This inference is fundamentally flawed. Proceedings under GST law are independent and distinct from those under the Income-tax Act and reversal of ITC cannot by itself be construed as conclusive evidence of non-genuineness of purchases. Such reversals are often undertaken to avoid protracted 21 litigation or due to issues attributable to suppliers and therefore cannot

SUBHASH BADRIPRASAD SHAHU,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(3), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesubhash Badriprasad Shahu, Plot No.84, Near Annapurna Dall Mill, Bagad Ganj, Small Factory Area ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 008. Maharashtra. Pan – Agqps9660N V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(3), Nagpur Assessee By :Shri. Abhay Agrawal.A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

bogus under section 69C of the Act. Whereas, the learned A.R. substantiated that the transactions are genuine and also submitted in the Paper Book highlighting the purchase bills, purchase register / sales register, stock, transportation bills referred in Page–16 to 39 of the Paper Book. The learned A.R’s contention that the assessee has already offered the purchases for 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

24 & 25 of the paper book). 6. The appellant also wishes to highlight the fact that before the First Appellate Authority, the appellant has taken two ground of App al. 5 ITA 194/NAG/2017_ M/s Shree Palsiddha Construction Sakharkheda Vs Pr.CIT First, challenging the jurisdiction under section 147 and second G.P., addition made on account of alleged Hawala Purchase. (Page

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

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. M/S NIHAL GITS PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

bogus. 4.6 On perusal of assessment order, the only objection of the A.O. was that the huge share premium amount received by the appellant was not justified and not a rational decision on part of investor companies. In response, the appellant submitted that it had provided detailed justification for share premium received before the A.O. The appellant submitted that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, NAGPUR vs. M/S RAGHAV FINVEST PVT LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

bogus. 4.6 On perusal of assessment order, the only objection of the A.O. was that the huge share premium amount received by the appellant was not justified and not a rational decision on part of investor companies. In response, the appellant submitted that it had provided detailed justification for share premium received before the A.O. The appellant submitted that

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. VISHNU GILTS PVT.LT, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

bogus. 4.6 On perusal of assessment order, the only objection of the A.O. was that the huge share premium amount received by the appellant was not justified and not a rational decision on part of investor companies. In response, the appellant submitted that it had provided detailed justification for share premium received before the A.O. The appellant submitted that

NIKITA SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ms. Nikita Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Borpt 4644 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /62022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

purchase and sale transactions. Further, in case statements of CP were debatable, it was also recorded that Tribunal had not decided the ground of appeal that assessee had not filed certificate as per section 80HHC(4) and, therefore, was not eligible for deduction in the said section. Hence, matter remanded to Tribunal to examine all evidences in detail and decide

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

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

HARSHA SANTOSH TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Harsha Santosh Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar,Pandhuna, Nagpur Pandhurna 480334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Bobpt 5794 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 / 6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Aforesaid Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

purchase and sale transactions. Further, in case statements of CP were debatable, it was also recorded that Tribunal had not decided the ground of appeal that assessee had not filed certificate as per section 80HHC(4) and, therefore, was not eligible for deduction in the said section. Hence, matter remanded to Tribunal to examine all evidences in detail and decide

ASHA SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is party allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Smt. Asha Shankarlal Tanwani Vs. The Acit 01, Shankar Nagar, Pandhuna Central Circle 2(1) Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Nagpur Pan No.:Bnvpt 1763 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 / 6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Aforesaid Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

purchase and sale transactions. Further, in case statements of CP were debatable, it was also recorded that Tribunal had not decided the ground of appeal that assessee had not filed certificate as per section 80HHC(4) and, therefore, was not eligible for deduction in the said section. Hence, matter remanded to Tribunal to examine all evidences in detail and decide

NIKITA SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ms. Nikita Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Borpt 4644 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

purchase and sale transactions. Further, in case statements of CP were debatable, it was also recorded that Tribunal had not decided the ground of appeal that assessee had not filed certificate as per section 80HHC(4) and, therefore, was not eligible for deduction in the said section. Hence, matter remanded to Tribunal to examine all evidences in detail and decide

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

24 Group of 22 Cases, Nagpur. Gupta group of cases. 48. Ground No.10 is general in nature and hence, requires no adjudication. 49. In the result, CO No.03/NAG/2015 raised by the assessee is allowed. CO No.04/NAG/2015 ( By Assessee) A.Y.2007-08 50. Ground No.1 of this appeal pertains to the deletion of addition of Rs.1.80 Crores towards purchases made from M/s. Encore

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

24 Group of 22 Cases, Nagpur. Gupta group of cases. 48. Ground No.10 is general in nature and hence, requires no adjudication. 49. In the result, CO No.03/NAG/2015 raised by the assessee is allowed. CO No.04/NAG/2015 ( By Assessee) A.Y.2007-08 50. Ground No.1 of this appeal pertains to the deletion of addition of Rs.1.80 Crores towards purchases made from M/s. Encore

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

24 Group of 22 Cases, Nagpur. Gupta group of cases. 48. Ground No.10 is general in nature and hence, requires no adjudication. 49. In the result, CO No.03/NAG/2015 raised by the assessee is allowed. CO No.04/NAG/2015 ( By Assessee) A.Y.2007-08 50. Ground No.1 of this appeal pertains to the deletion of addition of Rs.1.80 Crores towards purchases made from M/s. Encore

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

24 Group of 22 Cases, Nagpur. Gupta group of cases. 48. Ground No.10 is general in nature and hence, requires no adjudication. 49. In the result, CO No.03/NAG/2015 raised by the assessee is allowed. CO No.04/NAG/2015 ( By Assessee) A.Y.2007-08 50. Ground No.1 of this appeal pertains to the deletion of addition of Rs.1.80 Crores towards purchases made from M/s. Encore

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

24 Group of 22 Cases, Nagpur. Gupta group of cases. 48. Ground No.10 is general in nature and hence, requires no adjudication. 49. In the result, CO No.03/NAG/2015 raised by the assessee is allowed. CO No.04/NAG/2015 ( By Assessee) A.Y.2007-08 50. Ground No.1 of this appeal pertains to the deletion of addition of Rs.1.80 Crores towards purchases made from M/s. Encore

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

24 Group of 22 Cases, Nagpur. Gupta group of cases. 48. Ground No.10 is general in nature and hence, requires no adjudication. 49. In the result, CO No.03/NAG/2015 raised by the assessee is allowed. CO No.04/NAG/2015 ( By Assessee) A.Y.2007-08 50. Ground No.1 of this appeal pertains to the deletion of addition of Rs.1.80 Crores towards purchases made from M/s. Encore