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

801] and held that facts and circumstances of the impugned case are similar to those covered by the above mentioned judicial decisions. The AO has invoked the proviso to section 68 of the Act and held that creditworthiness of the investor M/s Saphire Marketing Pvt Ltd and genuineness of the transaction are not established. 4.1.2 I have carefully perused

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 such expenditure. 29.2 This used to enable the taxpayer charged to tax under section 69C to claim the expenditure as deduction under section 37 defeating the very objective of the section. 29.3 The Act has amended section 69C of the Income-tax Act according to which unexplained expenditure deemed as income cannot be allowed as deduction under

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 such expenditure. 29.2 This used to enable the taxpayer charged to tax under section 69C to claim the expenditure as deduction under section 37 defeating the very objective of the section. 29.3 The Act has amended section 69C of the Income-tax Act according to which unexplained expenditure deemed as income cannot be allowed as deduction under

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 such expenditure. 29.2 This used to enable the taxpayer charged to tax under section 69C to claim the expenditure as deduction under section 37 defeating the very objective of the section. 29.3 The Act has amended section 69C of the Income-tax Act according to which unexplained expenditure deemed as income cannot be allowed as deduction under

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 such expenditure. 29.2 This used to enable the taxpayer charged to tax under section 69C to claim the expenditure as deduction under section 37 defeating the very objective of the section. 29.3 The Act has amended section 69C of the Income-tax Act according to which unexplained expenditure deemed as income cannot be allowed as deduction under

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 such expenditure. 29.2 This used to enable the taxpayer charged to tax under section 69C to claim the expenditure as deduction under section 37 defeating the very objective of the section. 29.3 The Act has amended section 69C of the Income-tax Act according to which unexplained expenditure deemed as income cannot be allowed as deduction under

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 such expenditure. 29.2 This used to enable the taxpayer charged to tax under section 69C to claim the expenditure as deduction under section 37 defeating the very objective of the section. 29.3 The Act has amended section 69C of the Income-tax Act according to which unexplained expenditure deemed as income cannot be allowed as deduction under

NARAYAN BHAGYACHANDRA KHATRI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Narayan Bhagyachandra Khatri Acit, Amravati Circle, Amravati Flat No. Sp-2/102, Streling Springdale Vs Aayakarbhavan, Near Dps School, Apartment, Raj Nagar, Nagpur, Saturna, Amravati, Maharashtra – 440013. Maharashtra – 440006. [Pan: Aaccg4441J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

disallowed Rs. 25,00,000/- by treating as unexplained investment under section 69 and tax the same under section 115BBE. 4. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee again filed detailed written submission. The submissions of assessee are recorded in para 3 of order

SAN FINANCE CORPORATION,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowability of interest on interest free advances given to 61 parties as mentioned in the notice issued u/s 263 of the IT Act 1961. Although the assessee has given break-up of the Advances, however, the allowability of interest paid in backdrop of the interest free advances given, its true purpose and consequent taxability has not been examined

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI SUDHIR RAMSWAROOP SARDA , NAGPUR

801).\n(xii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)\nfailed to appreciate that the transaction through banking channel is not always\ngenuine as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Mohan kala and others (291\nITR 278).\n(xiii) On the facts and circumstances of the case

NITIN MOHANLAL TAORI,KHAMGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KHAMGAION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is disposed off in terms indicated above

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["In short Act"). 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. Nitin Mohanlal Taori 3. Learned counsel first of all pleads that both lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in disallowing assessee's claim of having received gift from his grand mother to the tune of Rs.3

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

801-CALCUTTA HIGH COURT- The High Court held that lack of enquiry, where enquiry is necessary, can be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue so as to justify revisional jurisdiction. It was for non inquiry, the validity of action under Section 263 was held justified in a case of non verification of share capital contribution when there

DCIT-CC-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. INDRAKUMAR GHISULAL AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

disallowed u/s 68 of the Act 1961 and added to total income of the assessee. Ld. AO also made addition of Rs.4,12,466/- as 3% of sale consideration as unexplained expenditure by invoking the provisions of section 69C of Act. (Indrakumar Ghisulal Agrawal) 4. Being aggrieved, assessee carried the matter before the Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the assessment

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

801). 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that the Long-Term Capital Gains of the assessee were real and genuine without analyzing the incriminating circumstances given the dismissal of SLP by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 21636/2024 in the case

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

801). 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that the Long-Term Capital Gains of the assessee were real and genuine without analyzing the incriminating circumstances given the dismissal of SLP by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 21636/2024 in the case

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

801). 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in holding that the Long-Term Capital Gains of the assessee were real and genuine without analyzing the incriminating circumstances given the dismissal of SLP by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 21636/2024 in the case

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

section 153A, the assessee claimed such income as exempt income. Rajesh Sarda (AY2015-16) ITA 44/Nag/2022 8. To support his submissions, the ld CIT-DR for the revenue relied on the following  Manish C. Jogani (HUF) ITA No. 7344 to 7347/M/2014 dtd. 16.11.2015  Kolte Patil Developer ITA No. 1478 to 1483/PN/2013 dtd. 20.02.2015  Kanwar Natwar Singh Civil Appeal