SUNRISE STRUCTURALS & ENGINEERING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roysunrise Structural & Acit/Dcit, Circle-4, Engineering P. Ltd., A10, Vs Nagpur Hingna Midc, Nagpur (Urban), Nagpur-440016 Pan : Aaccs 3220 M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R

116 – 123) (122) [Vol.- III] K) Assessee sold goods in course of trading activity. Sales of goods are not disputed. Purchases by assessee paid through account payee cheques. Purchases stands satisfactorily explained. Reliance on: i) (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom) CIT Vs Nikunj Eximp Enterprises P Ltd. (P- 161 – 164) [Vol.- III] ii) Hon’ble Supreme Court Order

M/S. BELLEZZA (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 2,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.74/Nag/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S.Bellazza (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Circle-2, Lg-3, Achraj Tower-Ii, Vs Nagpur. Chhaoni Chowk, Chhindwara Road, Nagpur – 13. Pan: Aaccb 4029 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri S.C.Thakar – Ar Revenue By Shri G.J.Ninawe - Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13/01/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nagpur Dated 05.11.2014 Emanating From The Order Of Acit(Ao) Dated 30.12.2011 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act,1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1] A.C.I.T. Erred In Rejecting The Audited Books Of Account & Estimated Income @ 5% Of Total Receipts & Also Adding Additional Income Of Rs.30 Lacs To The Returned Income. Learned C.I.T.(A) Has Confirm The Addition Without Any Basis. 2] Learned C.I.T.(A) & A.C.I.T. Erred In Not Accepting The Assessee’S Various Submission & Supporting Documents Filed By The

116(Madras) has observed as under : Quote, “The statement recorded during survey operation under Section 133A may be a relevant material. But in the absence of further materials to substantiate the same, such statement recorded under Section 133A can hardly be the basis for assessment. During the survey, 900 gms of gold was found in the premises of the assessee

ASSTT. CIT, CIR- 7, NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEWQUEST CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

Section 30 of the I.T. Act. Taking into 30 ACIT, CIRCLE-7, NAGPUR VS M/s. Newquest Corporation Ltd. (Now known as Avantha Holdings Ltd) consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Department has not filed any supporting evidence/ rebuttal against the written submission ld. AR of the assessee except arguing that

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowed. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Com- missioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who agreed with the Assessing Officer and, accordingly, took the view that once the management in its books spread over the amount of Rs. 10,02,23,735 over a period of 60 months then, the Department was right in not giving the full

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowed. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Com- missioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who agreed with the Assessing Officer and, accordingly, took the view that once the management in its books spread over the amount of Rs. 10,02,23,735 over a period of 60 months then, the Department was right in not giving the full

I.T.O. WARD -1, AMRAVATI vs. SHRI SANJAY NANASAHEB BHARSAKALE, AMRAVATI

In the result, the appeal of the department is rejected

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

section 14(3), no separate addition can be made on account of cash credit u/s.68, even though the assessee has failed to discharge its onus of proof in explaining the amount shown in the books of account". The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the case of CIT vs. Aggarwal Engg