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

6. During the proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made a detailed submission before the CIT(A), which was recorded by the learned CIT(A) in its impugned order vide Page–4 to 14, is also reproduced below for ready reference:– “5.0 The Authorised Representative of the assessee has made the following written submission Ground

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.2, NAGPUR vs. SHRI GOVINDDAS GOVERDHAN DAGA, NAGPUR

In the result, cross-objection filed by the assessee stands dismissed

133(6) dated 15/10/2013,\nwhich reads as under:-\n\"Please refer to the return of income filed by you for A.Y. 2012-13, on\n31/07/2012 under PANAAWPD9591R declaring total income of Rs. 25,66,840/-\nincluding Rs. 16,36,74,245/-, being Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares\nof M/s MV Pvt. Ltd.\n2. It is noticed from

M/S RACHANA CONSTRUCTIONS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital gain. In this connection, the Assessing Officer has relied on the letter received by NMC in response to notice under section 133(6

ITO- (INTERNATION TAXATION),, NAGPUR vs. SMT. URMILA SHARAN RAMPAL,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

133, Farmland …………… Cross Objector Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440 010 ALBPR6823Q v/s Income Tax Officer (I.T), Nagpur ..…….………. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Manoj Moryani a/w Shri Mahesh Torani Revenue by : Shri A.R. Ninawe Date of Hearing – 22.06.2017 Date of Order – 27.06.2017 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, J.M. The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 18th

MANISHA ASHUTOSH SHEWALKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

Gain Tax stating that the asset sold is not a capital asset. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was of the view that as the land sold at enhanced price more than the normal, sale of prevailing sales can be regarded as capital assets. Thus, the assessee’s case was reopened under section 147 of the Income

RAVINDRA MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

gain. Therefore such an advance was clearly given by the assessee for the purpose of commercial expediency. • 4.4 As far as interest expenses vis-a- vis section 57 is concerned. The assessee wishes to submit that, the section 57(iii), lays down 17 Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal ITA no.375/Nag./2024 following conditions for claim of expenditure. o The expenditure must have

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

133(6) thus does not justify as AO making independent enquiries and in absence of the same the addition so made is unsustainable under law. 8.17 The appellant further brought attention to the appellant order passed in the appeal of Shri Sanjay Gaurishankar Agrawal by the undersigned for AY 2014-15 vide Order No. CIT(A) - 3/280/2016-17 dt. 30.3.2019 wherein

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

133(6) thus does not justify as AO making independent enquiries and in absence of the same the addition so made is unsustainable under law. 8.17 The appellant further brought attention to the appellant order passed in the appeal of Shri Sanjay Gaurishankar Agrawal by the undersigned for AY 2014-15 vide Order No. CIT(A) - 3/280/2016-17 dt. 30.3.2019 wherein

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA RADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

133(6) thus does not justify as AO making independent enquiries and in absence of the same the addition so made is unsustainable under law. 8.17 The appellant further brought attention to the appellant order passed in the appeal of Shri Sanjay Gaurishankar Agrawal by the undersigned for AY 2014-15 vide Order No. CIT(A) - 3/280/2016-17 dt. 30.3.2019 wherein

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

133(6) thus does not justify as AO making independent enquiries and in absence of the same the addition so made is unsustainable under law. 8.17 The appellant further brought attention to the appellant order passed in the appeal of Shri Sanjay Gaurishankar Agrawal by the undersigned for AY 2014-15 vide Order No. CIT(A) - 3/280/2016-17 dt. 30.3.2019 wherein

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

133(6) thus does not justify as AO making independent enquiries and in absence of the same the addition so made is unsustainable under law. 8.17 The appellant further brought attention to the appellant order passed in the appeal of Shri Sanjay Gaurishankar Agrawal by the undersigned for AY 2014-15 vide Order No. CIT(A) - 3/280/2016-17 dt. 30.3.2019 wherein

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER , NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

133(6) thus does not justify as AO making independent enquiries and in absence of the same the addition so made is unsustainable under law. 8.17 The appellant further brought attention to the appellant order passed in the appeal of Shri Sanjay Gaurishankar Agrawal by the undersigned for AY 2014-15 vide Order No. CIT(A) - 3/280/2016-17 dt. 30.3.2019 wherein

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

133(6) to both companies regarding transaction and all the parties have confirmed the transaction by submitting the written reply. The learned assessee officer has also mentioned the said aspect in Para-2, Page-2 of the assessment order. The assessee company itself also requested to the assessing officer for issue summons U/s. 131 and also requested to provide

NIRMALKUMAR AGRAWAL HUF,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHANDARA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

6) That for any other ground with kind permission of your honour at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. Facts in Brief:– For the year under consideration, the assessee filed his return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 25.08.2018 disclosing total income of ` ` 2,60,860, which includes income from capital gain and income from

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

capital gain from sale of shares in view of astronomical difference between the share price of a company with a short span of 6-7 months and made addition to the income of the appellant. But in the case of appellant, the appellant has received the amounts towards booking advance against the sale of property and not received towards share

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3),, NAGPUR vs. M/S. 21ST CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

133(6) notice. 1.3 The sanctity and veracity of the documents as well as the assessee’s submissions were accepted by the AO and no addition is made under section 68 to 69D. The learned AO made addition under the head income from other sources. 1.4 During the assessment proceedings, the AO directed assessee to substantiate share premium

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

133 The addition to total income of Rs. 10,00,000/- has been made on account of document found and impounded from the business premises of M/s Tirupati Developers framed as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C as per Para 10 of Assessment order. The transactions are duly accounted in the books of Tirupati Developers through the capital account of Shri Prashant

M/S SHREE STEEL CQASTINGS PVT. LTD ,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, NAGPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrym/S. Shree Steel Castings Dcit, Circle-1, Nagpur Pvt. Ltd., T/38/1, Midc, Vs. Hingna Road, Nagpur. Pan: Aaccs 4071 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

133(6) of the Act to such companies, which were returned back ‘unserved’ and, therefore, the AO apprised the Assessee about these facts. 3. The Assessee in response to the notice dated 04/12/2013, replied on dated 12/03/2014 stating that addresses of such companies having been changed and therefore it is providing new addresses. 4. The AO therefore issued notices

ANANT RAMRAO CHAVAN,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

capital gain assessed at ` 96,90,000, and demand raised of ` 32,48,488, vide order passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act. 3 Anant Ramrao Chavhan 4. It is noted that the date of service of assessment order was 19/01/2020; and the appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) is 10/12/2021. Thus, there