A,C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.- 2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI DHARAMPAL R.AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

disallowance of interest paid.\n11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nCIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.31,20,000/- made on account\nof investment in land treated as unexplained

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

disallowance of interest paid.\n11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nCIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.31,20,000/- made on account\nof investment in land treated as unexplained

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

disallowance of interest paid.\n11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nCIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.31,20,000/- made on account\nof investment in land treated as unexplained

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

disallowing the deemed dividend of Rs.6,49,70,741 (Rs.6,46,05,741 + Rs.3,65,000) (Revised after rectification to Rs. 1,72,80,539/-). 11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.40,63,928/- made on account of unexplained cash deposits

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

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI DHARAMPAL R.AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

Investments in purchase of land treated unexplained ` 2,61,040 9. para 13 ` 18,80,000 10. Estimation of freight received as per para 14 Agricultural income treated as business income as per 11. ` 3,43,000 para 15 Loan from Shree Agrawal Fin. Corp. treated as 12. ` 6,82,55,000 deemed dividend

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

disallowance under section 14A at ` 9,88,570, though the assessee is not liable for the same. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. During the proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made a detailed submission before the CIT(A), which was recorded by the learned CIT(A) in its impugned order

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

disallowance under section 14A at ₹ 15,75,789, though the assessee is not liable for the same. Being aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority.\n6. During the proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made a detailed submission which was recorded by the learned CIT(A) in its impugned order vide Page

PANJABRAO DESHMUKH NAGARI SAHAKARIPAT SANSTHA MARYADIT BULDANA,BULDANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , KHAMGAON

unexplained investments. The CIT(A) upheld these additions. For assessment year 2020-2021, the AO disallowed the claim for deduction

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

disallowance of interest paid.\n11. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nCIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.31,20,000/- made on account\nof investment in land treated as unexplained

PRATIK YOGESH JAISWAL,YAVATMAL vs. ITO WARD -1, YAVATMAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrypratik Yogesh Jaiswal, Ito, Ward-1, Yavatmal. Chhoti Gujri Road, Itwara Vs. Chowk, Yavatmal-445001. Pan: Asrpj 7342 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

unexplained investment’ and Rs.3,63,000/- being ‘disallowance of expenses’ in absence of documentary evidences, such as, bills and vouchers

SHRI PREMROOP V. SAHU,,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 1(2), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowance of various expenses @ 20%, coming to Rs.3,30,412/-, respectively. Learned CIT(A) has upheld the Assessing Officer’s action to this effect. It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee has pleaded his eight substantive grounds not only on merits but also validity of the sec.153A assessment itself. 4. We advert to this first and foremost legal

SHRI PREMROOP V. SAHU,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.,- 1(2), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowance of various expenses @ 20%, coming to Rs.3,30,412/-, respectively. Learned CIT(A) has upheld the Assessing Officer’s action to this effect. It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee has pleaded his eight substantive grounds not only on merits but also validity of the sec.153A assessment itself. 4. We advert to this first and foremost legal

SHRI PREMROOP V. SAHU,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.,- 1(2), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowance of various expenses @ 20%, coming to Rs.3,30,412/-, respectively. Learned CIT(A) has upheld the Assessing Officer’s action to this effect. It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee has pleaded his eight substantive grounds not only on merits but also validity of the sec.153A assessment itself. 4. We advert to this first and foremost legal

M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 1(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

Investment in land ` 75,000 3. Agricultural treated as business income ` 1,93,083 4. Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(e) ` 5,80,89,178 5. Deemed Dividend u/s 2(22)(d) ` 7,69,50,670 Share application & premium treated 6. ` 3,70,00,000 unexplained ` 6,15,49,178 7. Unsecured loans treated unexplained

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCEL-1(2, NAGPUR vs. M/S. VIBRANT GLOBAL CAPITAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. The assessee 3 M/s. Vibrant Global Capital Ltd. ITA no.229/Nag./2022 has not preferred any appeal against the addition upheld by learned CIT(A). The Revenue has preferred appeal in respect to additions deleted in the appeal of the assessee and are enumerated in the grounds of appeal reproduced above

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

unexplained cash credit on protective basis. Thus, the addition was sustained on the ground of re– opening. 2. Meanwhile, the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (“the learned PCIT"), in exercise of power of assuming jurisdiction conferred upon her under section 263 of the Act, issued notice dated 22/11/2023. The key observations in the notice are narrated below

RAVINDRA MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE , 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

disallow the expenditure of 74,32,292 is confirmed. The burden of proof to establish a direct and justifiable link between the expenditure and the income purportedly earned was not adequately met by the appellant. The importance of maintaining meticulous and compliant accounting records is reiterated to uphold the integrity of tax claims.” In effect, all the three grounds were