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

1 & 2) [Vol.-IV]. Detailed documentary evidence was placed on record on 09/03/2023 to explain the various observations made in the notice u/s 148A(a) of I.T. Act demonstrating genuineness and bonafides of purchase transaction (P- 3 to 7) [Vol.- IV). B) A.O. without verification and application of mind has issued notice u/s 148A

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

254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) – 3, Nagpur dated 11.02.2022 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015–16. The the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Order passed

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

254 of the Act or Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 250 of the Act. It has also been held in various subsequent case laws that this restriction is not applicable to the appellate authorities and that the appellate authorities can entertain claims made otherwise than by way of return or revised return of income provided the appellate authorities

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

purchased online. The above two companies are camouflage of companies managed & controlled by Mr. Shirish Shah. All the funds were arranged by Mr. Shirish Shah. The companies allowed their bank accounts with user ID and password to Shirish Shah. By using the bank accounts of various companies including even public limited companies the funds were managed and accommodation entries were

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

purchase & sale of shares are not disputed. The loss suffered by the assessee had been claimed to be carried forward and there is no revenue advantage to assessee for the year under consideration as loss has claimed to be carried forward. The ld. AR of the assessee thus submitted that the company is a juristic person and has lost entire

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

1,30,200 shares @ ` 190 each to the total income of the assessee. The assessee being not satisfied with the assessment 4 M/s. Raghav Finvest Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.121/Nag./2020 order of the Assessing Officer, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as follows

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

1,30,200 shares @ ` 190 each to the total income of the assessee. The assessee being not satisfied with the assessment 4 M/s. Raghav Finvest Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.121/Nag./2020 order of the Assessing Officer, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as follows

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

1,30,200 shares @ ` 190 each to the total income of the assessee. The assessee being not satisfied with the assessment 4 M/s. Raghav Finvest Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.121/Nag./2020 order of the Assessing Officer, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as follows

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.5, NAGPUR vs. M/S AVANTHA HOLDINGS LTD.,, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

bogus and inflated. Thus, the Id. CIT(A) allowed this expenditure in terms of provision of Section 30 of the I.T. Act. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Department has not filed any supporting evidence/ rebuttal against the written submission Id. AR of the assessee except arguing that

AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-5,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

bogus and inflated. Thus, the Id. CIT(A) allowed this expenditure in terms of provision of Section 30 of the I.T. Act. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Department has not filed any supporting evidence/ rebuttal against the written submission Id. AR of the assessee except arguing that