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

2% of LTCG being unexplained expenditure, is consequential in nature and hence deleted. 16 xxx xxx xxx [16] Considering the contentions raised on behalf of the Revenue,the Tribunal has arrived at a finding of fact that shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd. sold by the assessee cannot be doubted as bogus and exemption under Section

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

2% of LTCG being unexplained expenditure, is consequential in nature and hence deleted. xxx xxx xxx [16] Considering the contentions raised on behalf of the Revenue,the Tribunal has arrived at a finding of fact that shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd. sold by the assessee cannot be doubted as bogus and exemption under Section

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

127 of the Act, after which the assessments were concluded. There is no mention of this important fact of transfer of cases from ACIT-1(1) to ACIT-2(1) in the Affidavits. The officers bluntly misrepresent that the case was discussed on real time basis with the ACIT-2(1) only, when, in fact, the assessee attended and submitted

UMESH SADASHIV THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

127 of the Act, after which the assessments were concluded. There is no mention of this important fact of transfer of cases from ACIT-1(1) to ACIT-2(1) in the Affidavits. The officers bluntly misrepresent that the case was discussed on real time basis with the ACIT-2(1) only, when, in fact, the assessee attended and submitted

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

2 days prior to the deadline\nthereby putting the approving authority under great pressure and not giving\nhim sufficient time to apply his mind; (ii) the final approval must be in\nwriting; (iii) The fact that approval has been obtained, should be mentioned\nin the body of the assessment order.”\n14. During the course of arguments, Id counsel

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. METROCITY HOMES, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

capital account of Shri Prashant Bongirwar, the common partner in both the firms. Hence, no addition ought to have been 9 M/s. Metrocity Homes A.Y. 2017–18 made on account of unexplained expenditure by the assessee. The assessee had mentioned the same during the assessment proceedings but had not been considered by the learned A.O while passing the assessment order

PRECISION COMPONENT HIGHTECH LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as above for all the seven years

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

127 of the Act was passed by the learned PCIT–2, Nagpur, on 07/06/2018, and the case was centralized with the DCIT/ACiT, Central Circle–2(2), Nagpur. 6. During the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act, in the case of M/s.Techno Precision Engineers Pvt. Ltd., it was noticed that Precision Component Hightech Ltd. ITA no.91

PRECISION COMPONENT HIGHTECH LTD,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as above for all the seven years

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

127 of the Act was passed by the learned PCIT–2, Nagpur, on 07/06/2018, and the case was centralized with the DCIT/ACiT, Central Circle–2(2), Nagpur. 6. During the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act, in the case of M/s.Techno Precision Engineers Pvt. Ltd., it was noticed that Precision Component Hightech Ltd. ITA no.91

PRECISION COMPONENT HIGHTECH LTD,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as above for all the seven years

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

127 of the Act was passed by the learned PCIT–2, Nagpur, on 07/06/2018, and the case was centralized with the DCIT/ACiT, Central Circle–2(2), Nagpur. 6. During the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act, in the case of M/s.Techno Precision Engineers Pvt. Ltd., it was noticed that Precision Component Hightech Ltd. ITA no.91

PRECISION COMPONENT HIGHTECH LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as above for all the seven years

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

127 of the Act was passed by the learned PCIT–2, Nagpur, on 07/06/2018, and the case was centralized with the DCIT/ACiT, Central Circle–2(2), Nagpur. 6. During the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act, in the case of M/s.Techno Precision Engineers Pvt. Ltd., it was noticed that Precision Component Hightech Ltd. ITA no.91

PRECISION COMPONENT HIGHTECH LTD,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as above for all the seven years

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

127 of the Act was passed by the learned PCIT–2, Nagpur, on 07/06/2018, and the case was centralized with the DCIT/ACiT, Central Circle–2(2), Nagpur. 6. During the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act, in the case of M/s.Techno Precision Engineers Pvt. Ltd., it was noticed that Precision Component Hightech Ltd. ITA no.91

PRECISION COMPONENT HIGHTECH LTD,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as above for all the seven years

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

127 of the Act was passed by the learned PCIT–2, Nagpur, on 07/06/2018, and the case was centralized with the DCIT/ACiT, Central Circle–2(2), Nagpur. 6. During the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act, in the case of M/s.Techno Precision Engineers Pvt. Ltd., it was noticed that Precision Component Hightech Ltd. ITA no.91

PRECISION COMPONENT HIGHTECH LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as above for all the seven years

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

127 of the Act was passed by the learned PCIT–2, Nagpur, on 07/06/2018, and the case was centralized with the DCIT/ACiT, Central Circle–2(2), Nagpur. 6. During the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act, in the case of M/s.Techno Precision Engineers Pvt. Ltd., it was noticed that Precision Component Hightech Ltd. ITA no.91

RAMKRUSHNA ZILBAJI THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WRAD -4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 68 of Evidence Act says that a document, which should be registered under the law, should not be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has given the testimony but the proviso says that any non- testamentary document would not require the attesting witness unless the document worthiness is not questioned. The admission of the content

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

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

gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1) was filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation u/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in the case

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1) was filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation u/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in the case

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

127 of paper book. iv. So far as the bank statement of Aadhar Ventures India Limited showing the transfer of funds is concerned, the assessee encloses herewith the copy of bank statement of Aadhar Ventures India Limited alongwith Copy of account of Aadhar Ventures India Limited which is on Page-128 of paper book. v. The assessee respectfully submits that

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

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

gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1) was filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation u/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in the case