DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2 (1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

disallowance of exemption should have been made in light of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with section 13(3) of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 13 of the Act are reproduced below. Section 13 (1) Nothing contained in section 11 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

disallowance of exemption should have been made in light of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with section 13(3) of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 13 of the Act are reproduced below. Section 13 (1) Nothing contained in section 11 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon’Ble Accountant, Member Atul Manoharrao Yamsanwar V. Acit – Central Circle – 2(1) Plot No. 33, Manoharrao Room No. 312, 3Rd Floor Khare Town, Dharampeth Aayakar Bhavan, Telangkhedi Road Nagpur - 440010 Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440001 Pan – Aaepy4543Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowances where no incriminating evidence was found during the search proceeding at the premise of the assessee. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT is justified in law and fact for upholding an additions to the tune of Rs. 24,21,318/- as unexplained income under Sec 69A 4. Whether the Ld. CIT is justified in law and fact for upholding

PRABHAKAR RAMAJI AKARE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

69A and added the same to the total income for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act separately. Aggrieved by the quantum addition, the assessee carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee

PRABHAKAR RAMAJI AKARE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFCER, WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

69A and added the same to the total income for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act separately. Aggrieved by the quantum addition, the assessee carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee

RAVINDRA KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE AKOLA , 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

69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals was justified in affirming addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- by the learned Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances

CHANDRAKUMAR MADHUSUDANJI JAJODIA,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 69A of the Act being illegal, invalid and bad in law. 8. In grounds no.6 & 7, the assessee has challenged disallowance

KOLSA KHADAN KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT SILLEWADA PROJECT,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

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

69A is considered the same cannot be made as in first place no money, bullion, jewellery etc is found from the possession of the the appellant and second there the appellant is not conclusively the "owner" of it as the additions are made on the basis of debit vouchers only. In support the reliance is placed on the following judgments

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. UNIQUE REALITIES BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS , NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

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

69A is considered the same cannot be made as in first place no money, bullion, jewellery etc is found from the possession of the the appellant and second there the appellant is not conclusively the "owner" of it as the additions are made on the basis of debit vouchers only. In support the reliance is placed on the following judgments

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. UNIQUE REALITIES BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

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

69A is considered the same cannot be made as in first place no money, bullion, jewellery etc is found from the possession of the the appellant and second there the appellant is not conclusively the "owner" of it as the additions are made on the basis of debit vouchers only. In support the reliance is placed on the following judgments

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

SHRINIWAS NARAYAN GADGONIWAR,CHANDRAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE CHANDRAPUR, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose

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

69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in affirming the addition made by the Assessing officer to the tune of Rs. 3,75,738/- as per the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Whether

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

disallowance of any expenditure or suppression of income detected by the Revenue. In the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal held that in absence of any material being brought on record to show that the valuation done as on 31.3.2009 is incorrect, no occasion to apply Section 69C of the Act can arise. The ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers

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

disallowance of any expenditure or suppression of income detected by the Revenue. In the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal held that in absence of any material being brought on record to show that the valuation done as on 31.3.2009 is incorrect, no occasion to apply Section 69C of the Act can arise. The ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers

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

disallowance of any expenditure or suppression of income detected by the Revenue. In the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal held that in absence of any material being brought on record to show that the valuation done as on 31.3.2009 is incorrect, no occasion to apply Section 69C of the Act can arise. The ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers

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

disallowance of any expenditure or suppression of income detected by the Revenue. In the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal held that in absence of any material being brought on record to show that the valuation done as on 31.3.2009 is incorrect, no occasion to apply Section 69C of the Act can arise. The ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers

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

disallowance of any expenditure or suppression of income detected by the Revenue. In the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal held that in absence of any material being brought on record to show that the valuation done as on 31.3.2009 is incorrect, no occasion to apply Section 69C of the Act can arise. The ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers

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

disallowance of any expenditure or suppression of income detected by the Revenue. In the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal held that in absence of any material being brought on record to show that the valuation done as on 31.3.2009 is incorrect, no occasion to apply Section 69C of the Act can arise. The ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers