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

capital gain declared by assessee as such and accept the same. 3. I.T.A. No. 3801/Mum/2011 (ITAT, Mumbai) Ms. Farrah Marker –Vs- Income Tax Officer In this factual and legal matrix of the case, as discussed above, we find that the addition under section 68 of the Act made and confirmed by the authorities below to be unsustainable and therefore, directed

M/S NAVAL K AGARWAL,NAGPUR vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

capital of Shri Nawal Kishor Agrawal FY 2008-09 Rs. 30,00,000 iv) Sundry Creditors not verifiable in Shri Shyam Coal Services Rs.1,21,00,000 8. From the above we find that the nature and manner in which the undisclosed income is earned is amply exhibited. Further we note that there is no query whatsoever having been asked

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

capital gain declared by assessee as such and accept the same.\n3. I.T.A. No. 3801/Mum/2011 (ITAT, Mumbai) Ms. Farrah Marker -Vs- Income Tax Officer\nIn this factual and legal matrix of the case, as discussed above, we find that the addition under section 68 of the Act made and confirmed by the authorities below to be unsustainable and therefore, directed

M/S FUEL CORPORATION OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is ordered to be allowed

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

capital of Shri Nawal Kishor Agrawal FY 2008-09 Rs. 30,00,000 iv) Sundry Creditors not verifiable in Shri Shyam Coal Services Rs.1,21,00,000 8. From the above we find that the nature and manner in which the undisclosed income is earned is amply exhibited. Further we note that there is no query whatsoever having been asked

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

capital gains of Rs. 18.84 crore was treated income from undisclosed sources in the assessment order dated 28.12.2017. The AO also

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

undisclosed income of the previous year. The case of an item of such expenditure is, in principle, no different from that of a cash credit. In both cases, the assessee is in possession of certain funds during the previous year the source of which he is unable or unwilling to explain satisfactorily. It is a matter entirely within the assessee

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

undisclosed income of the previous year. The case of an item of such expenditure is, in principle, no different from that of a cash credit. In both cases, the assessee is in possession of certain funds during the previous year the source of which he is unable or unwilling to explain satisfactorily. It is a matter entirely within the assessee

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

undisclosed income of the previous year. The case of an item of such expenditure is, in principle, no different from that of a cash credit. In both cases, the assessee is in possession of certain funds during the previous year the source of which he is unable or unwilling to explain satisfactorily. It is a matter entirely within the assessee

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

undisclosed income of the previous year. The case of an item of such expenditure is, in principle, no different from that of a cash credit. In both cases, the assessee is in possession of certain funds during the previous year the source of which he is unable or unwilling to explain satisfactorily. It is a matter entirely within the assessee

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

undisclosed income of the previous year. The case of an item of such expenditure is, in principle, no different from that of a cash credit. In both cases, the assessee is in possession of certain funds during the previous year the source of which he is unable or unwilling to explain satisfactorily. It is a matter entirely within the assessee

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

undisclosed income of the previous year. The case of an item of such expenditure is, in principle, no different from that of a cash credit. In both cases, the assessee is in possession of certain funds during the previous year the source of which he is unable or unwilling to explain satisfactorily. It is a matter entirely within the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. AAKAR HOTELS, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain. The “partnership firm\" and \"partners\" are different\nentities as per Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer has misdirected\nhimself to understand the basic premise of ownership and has gone to tax the\nincome in their own hands.\n11.\nFurther, we observe that the P.N.B. Construction Company approached the\nAssessee for purchase of the built-up area

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

income is not valid which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. This fact has also not been cared by Addl.CIT while granting such approval dt.29/09/2021 under section 153D for A.Y. 2018-19 to 2020–21. 48. It is submitted that the Addl.CIT has also not cared that addition

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

income is not valid which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. This fact has also not been cared by Addl.CIT while granting such approval dt.29/09/2021 under section 153D for A.Y. 2018-19 to 2020–21. 48. It is submitted that the Addl.CIT has also not cared that addition

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

income is not valid which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. This fact has also not been cared by Addl.CIT while granting such approval dt.29/09/2021 under section 153D for A.Y. 2018-19 to 2020–21. 48. It is submitted that the Addl.CIT has also not cared that addition

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

income is not valid which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. This fact has also not been cared by Addl.CIT while granting such approval dt.29/09/2021 under section 153D for A.Y. 2018-19 to 2020–21. 48. It is submitted that the Addl.CIT has also not cared that addition

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

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

income is not valid which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. This fact has also not been cared by Addl.CIT while granting such approval dt.29/09/2021 under section 153D for A.Y. 2018-19 to 2020–21. 48. It is submitted that the Addl.CIT has also not cared that addition

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

income is not valid which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. This fact has also not been cared by Addl.CIT while granting such approval dt.29/09/2021 under section 153D for A.Y. 2018-19 to 2020–21. 48. It is submitted that the Addl.CIT has also not cared that addition

SHRI VISHWAKARAMA JEWELLERS ,AKOLA vs. DCIT AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

undisclosed income and the reasonability of the explanation so offered by the Assessee keeping into account the facts and circumstances of the relevant case. In fact, if we look at the provisions of section 133A, clause (iii) of sub-section (3) provides that an income tax authority acting under this section shall record the statement of any person which