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

credits received during the assessment year 2014-15 and it has brought forward from earlier/preceding year i.e., assessment year 2013-14; and in such a situation, it 39 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 cannot be added under section 68 in as mistakenly proposed by the Assessing Officer and this mistake of the Assessing

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

credits received during the assessment year 2014-15 and it has brought forward from earlier/preceding year i.e., assessment year 2013-14; and in such a situation, it 39 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 cannot be added under section 68 in as mistakenly proposed by the Assessing Officer and this mistake of the Assessing

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

credits received during the assessment year 2014-15 and it has brought forward from earlier/preceding year i.e., assessment year 2013-14; and in such a situation, it 39 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 cannot be added under section 68 in as mistakenly proposed by the Assessing Officer and this mistake of the Assessing

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

credits received during the assessment year 2014-15 and it has brought forward from earlier/preceding year i.e., assessment year 2013-14; and in such a situation, it 39 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 cannot be added under section 68 in as mistakenly proposed by the Assessing Officer and this mistake of the Assessing

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

condone the delay of 267 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit, as no mala fide intention can be ascribed to the assessee. 5. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is a Company engaged in financial activities. The assessee, on 30/09/2013, filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring total loss

ANNUVA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryannuva Infrastructure Pvt. Ito, Ward-4(4), Nagpur. Ltd., Plot No.1249, Near Sindhu Bhawan, Vs. Vaishali Nagar, Nagpur-440017. Pan: Aahca 0371 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay involved is condoned. 3 5. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the Assessee by filing its return of income on dated 18/12/2017 declared loss of Rs. 191/-. Subsequently, on the basis of search conducted at the residence and various premises of Mr. Shirish C. Shah, who happened to be main persons engaged in providing

ABID MUSTAFA KHAN,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleabid Mustafa Khan, 301, Mayfair Residency, Raj Nagar Opp. Green Park, Nagpur 440 013, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Aqipk9595G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(2), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri K.K. Thakkar. A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

unexplained cash credit u/sec 69A of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs.46,95,000/–, and passed order u/sec 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 23/03/2023. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed appeal before the CIT(A). 3. In the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) found that there is a delay of 321 days

AMOL BABANRAV KOLAKAR,MANGRULPIR vs. ITO WARD-2, AKOLA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

condonation of delay application. 2] Learned A.O. erred in adding amounting to Rs.10,96,050/- as unexplained cash credit and added

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S. FUELCO COAL INDIA LTD., NAGPUR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 on account of share capital and premium from M/s Saphire Marketing Pvt Ltd is unjustified, unwarranted and in any case excessive. 2 M/s. Fuel Co. Coal India Ltd. ITA no.90/Nag./2022 4. The disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) in Para 4(2) at Rs.1,50,000/- on account of Payment made to the advocate

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

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

unexplained cash credits u/s68 of Rs.32,46,300; the AO has not made any addition on undisclosed „asset‟ which is sine qua non/ pre- condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment u/s153C for „relevant AY‟ as per „fourth proviso‟ to section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable

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

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

unexplained cash credits u/s68 of Rs.32,46,300; the AO has not made any addition on undisclosed „asset‟ which is sine qua non/ pre- condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment u/s153C for „relevant AY‟ as per „fourth proviso‟ to section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable

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

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

unexplained cash credits u/s68 of Rs.32,46,300; the AO has not made any addition on undisclosed „asset‟ which is sine qua non/ pre- condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment u/s153C for „relevant AY‟ as per „fourth proviso‟ to section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable

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

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

unexplained cash credits u/s68 of Rs.32,46,300; the AO has not made any addition on undisclosed „asset‟ which is sine qua non/ pre- condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment u/s153C for „relevant AY‟ as per „fourth proviso‟ to section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable

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

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

unexplained cash credits u/s68 of Rs.32,46,300; the AO has not made any addition on undisclosed „asset‟ which is sine qua non/ pre- condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment u/s153C for „relevant AY‟ as per „fourth proviso‟ to section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable

SHRI VASANTRAO GOPALRAO GHONGE,WARDHA vs. DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR. 1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Late Vasantrao Gopalrao Ghonge Vs. The Dcit Thru Legal Heir Vilas Vasantrao Ghonge Central Circle 1 (1) Gharpure Layout, Nagri Bank Colony, Nagpur Warda Pan No.:Aiwpg 6212 C Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Date Of Hearing: 26/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Appellant Against Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Dated 21/12/2015 In Appeal Nos. Cit(A)-3/242/2013-14 For Asstt. Year 2011-12. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Appellant For Asstt. Year 2011-12 Are As Under:- “A) The Learned A.O. Was Wrong & Unjustified In Making An Addition Of Samarpan Nidhi Of Rs.20,79,936/- To The Total Income Of The Undersigned Assessee As Net Business / Vocational Income. B) The Learned A.O. Was Wrong Arbitrary & Unjustified In Making An Addition Of Receipts Of B.S.Y. Vasantrao Gopalrao Ghonge Maharaj Nyas Of Rs.5,21,349/- To The Total Income Of The Undersigned Assessee On The Presumption That Those Receipts Belong To The Undersigned.

delay in filing the appeal due to some reasonable cause, the same may be condoned. g) The appellant may be allowed to raise any other ground and additional ground during the course of hearing.” 1. The appellant has expired on 13/12/2017. Legal heir has submitted revised Form 36 along with grounds of appeal in terms of Rule 26 of Income

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. SMT DISHA DEVEN MALVIYA L/H OF LATE SHRI DEVEN MALVIYA , NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

unexplained cash credits u/sec.68 of the Act. 7. Learned counsel at this stage sought to highlight assessee’s cross objections and argued that the Assessing Officer had not even quote the correct provision of law as to whether it was a case inviting sec.68 or 69 of the Act. We reject the assessee’s contentions as even if a wrong

ACIT, CIRCLE -1, NAGPUR vs. SMT DESHA DEVEN MALVIYA L/H OF LATE SHRI DEVEN MALVIYA, NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

unexplained cash credits u/sec.68 of the Act. 7. Learned counsel at this stage sought to highlight assessee’s cross objections and argued that the Assessing Officer had not even quote the correct provision of law as to whether it was a case inviting sec.68 or 69 of the Act. We reject the assessee’s contentions as even if a wrong

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. SMT DISHA DEVEN MALVIYA , NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

unexplained cash credits u/sec.68 of the Act. 7. Learned counsel at this stage sought to highlight assessee’s cross objections and argued that the Assessing Officer had not even quote the correct provision of law as to whether it was a case inviting sec.68 or 69 of the Act. We reject the assessee’s contentions as even if a wrong