HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was provided to the assessee with prior approval from competent authority vide dated 23/03/2022 wherein the assessee was given a show cause as to why following income/receipts shall not be treated as income chargeable to tax which has escaped the assessment within the meaning of provision of section

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was provided to the assessee with prior approval from competent authority vide dated 23/03/2022 wherein the assessee was given a show cause as to why following income/receipts shall not be treated as income chargeable to tax which has escaped the assessment within the meaning of provision of section

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was provided to the assessee with prior approval from competent authority vide dated 23/03/2022 wherein the assessee was given a show cause as to why following income/receipts shall not be treated as income chargeable to tax which has escaped the assessment within the meaning of provision of section

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

section 68 is clear. The Legislature has laid down\nthat in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash\ncredit may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of\nthat previous year. In this, case the legislative mandate is not in terms\nof the words \"shall be charged to income-tax as the income

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 69 has held that in creating the legal fiction the phraseology employs the word \"may\" and not \"shall\". Thus the unsatisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE (EXEMPTIONS), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. VASANTRAO NAIK STATE AGRICULTURE EXTENTION MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowing the deduction u/s 10(22C)(ab) on Aggrieved with the above, the appellant is before” 3 Vasantrao Naik State Agriculture Extension Management Institute ITA no.208/Nag./2025 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) held that the assessee is entitled to claim exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act and allowed the appeal of the assessee. The observations

NIRMALKUMAR AGRAWAL HUF,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHANDARA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

section 148A(d) of another assessee is vague, nebulous and fragile. 10 Nirmalkumar Agrawal (HUF) ITA no.242/Nag./2025 8. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the creditworthiness of the company is doubtful and hence there is a miserable lack of enquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer and accordingly revisionary proceedings has been rightly initiated

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 69.\nFurther, we may point out that section 68 under which the addition has\nbeen made by the Assessing Officer reads as under:\n\"68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee\nmaintained for any previous year. and the assessee offers no\nexplanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation\noffered

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

section 69.\nFurther, we may point out that section 68 under which the addition has\nbeen made by the Assessing Officer reads as under:\n\"68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee\nmaintained for any previous year. and the assessee offers no\nexplanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation\noffered

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

section 153A of the Act in absence of incriminating\ndocument found as a result of search.\n57. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee did\nnot wish to press this ground to which the learned Departmental\nRepresentative has not raised any objection. Accordingly, ground no.2, stands\ndismissed as \"not pressed”.\n58. Ground no.3, relates to addition

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

section 69.\nFurther, we may point out that section 68 under which the addition has\nbeen made by the Assessing Officer reads as under:\n\"68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee\nmaintained for any previous year. and the assessee offers no\nexplanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation\noffered

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 68 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961. Further, the AO did not find the explanation offered by the assessee\nsatisfactory and stated that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus\ntowards explaining the credit of Rs.15,00,000/-. We respectfully object to the\nabove observations and allegations made by the AO as the same are based on\nconjectures