JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

254, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur. ……………. Appellant PAN – AAQPN4090H v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, ……………. Respondent (OSD), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri M.G.Moryani, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR Date of Hearing – 27/06/2024 Date of Order – 27/06/2024 O R D E R PER K.M.ROY, A.M. The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 18/10/2023, passed

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

FATTESING PUNAJI DHABRE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX – 2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 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 the assessee is directed against the order of learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (in short, the “ld. PCIT") – 2, Nagpur dated 30/03/2021 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances

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

Gain (LTCG). Please explain in detail all such modes employed by you for providing accommodation entries. Ans. Sir, The modes employed by me for providing accommodation entries against commission are as under: 1. Subscription to share capital at premium:- Sir, in such cases shares of the companies of clients/beneficiaries are subscribed at high premium by the companies floated/managed/controlled

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

254 (Gauhati) it has been held that- “Under section 68 of Income Tax Act creditor‟s creditworthiness has to be judged vis-à-vis transactions, which have taken place between assessee and creditor, and it is not business of assessee to find out source of money of his creditor or genuineness of transactions, which took place between creditor

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

1 (SC). We on perusing the evidence on record find that learned CIT(A) has dealt with the facts and evidence on record extensively while granting relief in the case of appellant. Detailed order passed by the CIT(A) indicating reason for deleting the addition has been reproduced in the paragraphs hereinabove. We are in agreement with the findings

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

1 (SC). We on perusing the evidence on record find that learned CIT(A) has dealt with the facts and evidence on record extensively while granting relief in the case of appellant. Detailed order passed by the CIT(A) indicating reason for deleting the addition has been reproduced in the paragraphs hereinabove. We are in agreement with the findings

RUPESH LALDAS DHAKATE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD -1, BHANDARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

capital gains taxation under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act. Ruling: The court observed that the execution of the agreement and payment made before the registration date can be considered for the purpose of determining the sale price. The case involved situations where agreements to sell were executed, and payments were made before the actual registration of the sale

MAHESHKUMAR BADRIBISHAL BHARTIYA,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1,, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Shri Ajitkumar Badriprasad Bhartiya Dcit, Circle –1 A–704, Anandam World City, Vs Bsnl–Rttc Building, Umred Road, Ganeshopeth, Seminary Hills, Nagpur – 440018. Nagpur – 440001. [Pan: Abbpb0801G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT/ADDL/JCIT(A), Faridabad dated 25.03.2025 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015–16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That the learned Addl/JCIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the order

SHRI AJITKUMAR BADRIPRASAD BHARTIYA,NAGPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Shri Ajitkumar Badriprasad Bhartiya Dcit, Circle –1 A–704, Anandam World City, Vs Bsnl–Rttc Building, Umred Road, Ganeshopeth, Seminary Hills, Nagpur – 440018. Nagpur – 440001. [Pan: Abbpb0801G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT/ADDL/JCIT(A), Faridabad dated 25.03.2025 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015–16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That the learned Addl/JCIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the order

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

254 ITR 377) (Delhi HC) approved by SC in 288 ITR 1, CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Mfrs. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC), Aluminium Corpn.of India Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC) and CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC). 4.8 During

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

254 ITR 377) (Delhi HC) approved by SC in 288 ITR 1, CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Mfrs. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC), Aluminium Corpn.of India Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC) and CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC). 4.8 During

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

254 ITR 377) (Delhi HC) approved by SC in 288 ITR 1, CIT v. Walchand & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1967] 65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Mfrs. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC), Aluminium Corpn.of India Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC) and CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC). 4.8 During

SHIVPRASAD SHEVADE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), BSNL RTTC BUILDING, NAGPUR

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Shivprasad Shevade, Ito, Ward-4(4), Plot No. 80, Attadeep Nagar, Vs Bsnl Rttc Building, Seminary Near Juni Vasti Manewada, Nagpur, Hills, Nagpur, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440027. Mharashtra–440033. [Pan: Eqops0368M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 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)/NFAC, Delhi dated –01.11.2024 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal; “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

INOCME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1(5), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK , NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for A

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

254] which states that under mercantile system of accounting what is receivable is brought into credit before its actually received. 3. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals), Nagpur is justified in deleting the addition made on account of profit on sale of assets, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not submitted

INOCME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1(5), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK , NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for A

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

254] which states that under mercantile system of accounting what is receivable is brought into credit before its actually received. 3. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals), Nagpur is justified in deleting the addition made on account of profit on sale of assets, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not submitted

LALITA SANJIVREDDY BODKURWAR,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

section 263 cannot be taken. However in the present case, the AO has not made any informed opinion. He has not collected the entire facts, nor weighed them against any judicial precedents. The Assessing Officer has acted merely as an approver and ignored both his core functions of investigation and adjudication. 6 ITA.No.90/Nag./2020 7. As discussed above