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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

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

disallowance of legal and professional charges of Rs. 2,25,310/-. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment

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

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

disallowance of legal and professional charges of Rs. 2,25,310/-. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment

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

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

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. 6. 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

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

I..T.O. WARD 1(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI ASHOK GULABCHAND CHANDAK, NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi

investment. Further, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has taken unsecured loan of ` 38,13,277 and given details only for ` 23,98,000, hence, the Assessing Officer added ` 14,15,277 as an unexplained income. Further, the Assessing Officer disallowed

I.T.O. WARD - 2,KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON vs. M/S SHRI HANUMAN ONION TRADING CO.,,

In the result this appeal filed by the Revenue is stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya. (S.M.C.)

unexplained investment in chillies. 3. Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(Appeals) elaborately considered the submissions and gave the finding that the aforesaid stock of red chillies with the Best Cold Storage were out of opening stock with the assessee and the same were earlier purchased from M/s Maheshwari Trading Company, Guntur. The CIT(Appeals) also observed that

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

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI AJAY GOVINDDAS SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.506, 508 & 509/Nag/2016 Assessment Years. : 2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12) Vs Ajay Govinddas Saraf, Dy.Cit, Cir-2(2), Nagpur Flat No.2, Yogeshwar Ganga Apartment, 97-98, Farm Land, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur-12 Pan No. : Aqfps 2701 K & Cross Objection Nos.11, 13 & 14/Nag/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.506, 508 & 509/Nag/2016) Assessment Years. : 2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12) Vs Dy.Cit, Cir-2(2), Nagpur Ajay Govinddas Saraf, Flat No.2, Yogeshwar Ganga Apartment, 97-98, Farm Land, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur-12 Pan No. : Aqfps 2701 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sudesh Banthia, Ca सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R

unexplained Basis) expenditure (Ground 1) 4th Cash found during the Rs. 112.61 Lac search (Protective Basis) (Ground 2) 5th Cash found during the Rs. 10 Lac search at home and in (Protective Locker Basis) (Ground 3) 4. The first ground of appeal raised by the revenue is regarding deletion of addition by the Ld CIT(A) relates to Undisclosed income

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI AJAY GOVINDDAS SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.506, 508 & 509/Nag/2016 Assessment Years. : 2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12) Vs Ajay Govinddas Saraf, Dy.Cit, Cir-2(2), Nagpur Flat No.2, Yogeshwar Ganga Apartment, 97-98, Farm Land, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur-12 Pan No. : Aqfps 2701 K & Cross Objection Nos.11, 13 & 14/Nag/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.506, 508 & 509/Nag/2016) Assessment Years. : 2006-07, 2009-10 & 2011-12) Vs Dy.Cit, Cir-2(2), Nagpur Ajay Govinddas Saraf, Flat No.2, Yogeshwar Ganga Apartment, 97-98, Farm Land, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur-12 Pan No. : Aqfps 2701 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sudesh Banthia, Ca सुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R

unexplained Basis) expenditure (Ground 1) 4th Cash found during the Rs. 112.61 Lac search (Protective Basis) (Ground 2) 5th Cash found during the Rs. 10 Lac search at home and in (Protective Locker Basis) (Ground 3) 4. The first ground of appeal raised by the revenue is regarding deletion of addition by the Ld CIT(A) relates to Undisclosed income

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

NIKITA SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ms. Nikita Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Borpt 4644 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /62022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

unexplained income in hands of assessee under section 69A. So far as the case of assesse is concerned the aforesaid facts are totally different and not applicable in the case of the assesse and distinguish on fact itself. b) In the case of Hon’ble SC in Krishan Kumar vs. ITO (2019) 265 Taxman 227 (SC) relied upon

ANKIT SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Ankit Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Biapt 4756 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 / 6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

unexplained income in hands of assessee under section 69A. So far as the case of assesse is concerned the aforesaid facts are totally different and not applicable in the case of the assesse and distinguish on fact itself. b) In the case of Hon’ble SC in Krishan Kumar vs. ITO (2019) 265 Taxman 227 (SC) relied upon