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

234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 2334B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 8) Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is proprietor of Lakshya Enterprises engaged in the trading of Iron

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

234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 11. 3. Facts in Brief:- In this case, the assessee, for the year under consideration, filed its return of income on 29/09/2012, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer during the regular assessment framed under section

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

234B and 234C of the Income Tax act, the same may kindly be deleted; 11. The appellant craves leave to amend, add or take a new ground or grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. Facts in Brief:– The Assessing Officer received information from DDIT (I&CI)-1, Nagpur, that during the assessment year under consideration, the assessee, jointly with

SIMA RAVISINGH KACHHAWAH,UMRER vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadalesima Ravisingh Kachhawah, Girad Road, Om Nagar Umrer, ……………. Appellant Nagpur- 441203 Maharastra, Pan – Aqmpk2899K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

234B, along with fees under Section 234F of the Act for non-filing of the income tax return under Section 139(1). The same shall be deleted. 15. The learned CIT (A) NFAC has erred in law and acted unjustifiably by confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer without conducting any independent verification, without properly considering the provisions

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

234B of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is improper. (5) That for any other grounds with kind permission of your honour at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is required. 4. Grounds no.2 & 3, relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission

PRITAM SINGH CHARAN SINGH GUJJAR,NAGPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 5. The assessee craves leave to amend, add or take a new ground or grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. The sole point of dispute is whether the addition of ` 3,22,000, towards difference between the fair market value on the same consideration

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

234B of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is improper. (5) That for any other grounds with kind permission of your honour at the time of hearing of appeal.” Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is required. Grounds no.2 & 3, relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission on turnover

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

234B of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is improper. (5) That for any other grounds with kind permission of your honour at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is required. 4. Grounds no.2 & 3, relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission

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

234B of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is improper. (5) That for any other grounds with kind permission of your honour at the time of hearing of appeal.” Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is required. Grounds no.2 & 3, relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission on turnover

SHRIRAM NARAYAN TIKDE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX, WARD 4(4) , NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

capital gains of Rs.73,041 offered by the assessee. In doing so, the learned AO erred in not providing benefit of indexed cost of improvement of Rs.4,55,185 incurred during FY 2006-07, brokerage fees on sale of plot of Rs.25,000 and deduction under section 54 claimed by the assessee on new investment

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

234B of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is improper. (5) That for any other grounds with kind permission of your honour at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is required. 4. Grounds no.2 & 3, relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission

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

234B of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is improper. (5) That for any other grounds with kind permission of your honour at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is required. 4. Grounds no.2 & 3, relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission

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

234B of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is improper. (5) That for any other grounds with kind permission of your honour at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is required. 4. Grounds no.2 & 3, relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission

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

3. The learned A.O./CIT(A) erred in assessing income at Rs.96,90,000/- ignoring the submission as made in the assessment proceedings. 2 Anant Ramrao Chavhan 4. The learned A.O./CIT (A) erred in assessing the Long Term Capital Gain on sale of immovable asset ignoring the situation of its conversion into industrial purposes in earlier years without giving

VIRAMBHAI HARGOVANBHAI PATEL,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

234B and 234C of the Act the same may kindly be deleted; 6. The appellant seeks permission to add any other ground of appeal or amend or alter the aforesaid ground of appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Grounds no.1 and 6, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is required. 4. The issue arise

M/S. HARIHAR INFRASTUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE- 1,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 60/Nag/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Harihar Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.; G-3, Amar Palace, Opp. Patwardhan Ground, Dhantoli, Nagpur-12. Pan : Aabch9888H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Shriram, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Headoo, Dr

gain on sale of agricultural land is exempt u/s.2(1A) of I.T.Act, 1961. 3. The addition made by the AO at Rs.31,45,251/- in the assessment framed as business income is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 3 M/s. Harihar Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Nagpur 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S SANJAY SHANKARRAO JADHAO,AMRAVATI vs. JIOINT C.I.T. AMRAVATI RANGE,, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi

234B and 234C of l.T Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 2. Apropos ground relating to disallowance of claim of ` 2,88,986 on plant and machinery. 3. The assessee, in this case, is a proprietor of several businesses. The Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings, noted that in case of one of its business concerns namely

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

234B of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is improper. (7) That for any other ground with kind permission of your honour at the time of hearing of appeal.” 4. Facts in Brief:– The assessee company is a manufacturer of cement Resin and cement capsules and engaged in trading sale activities. The books of account are regularly maintained