SHRI ANKIT SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANAT 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: 2019-20 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 2019-20. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal 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.

money found and seized from locker. In the written submission, the department has further relied on statement recorded U/s. 131 of the Act. The contention of the departmental representative was that the assessee has kept cash at Rs. 21,50,000/- in his locker and stated that the source of income is retail business. The departmental representative further stated that

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: 2019-20 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 /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 2019-20. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

money found and seized from locker. In the written submission the department has further relied on statement recorded U/s. 131 of the Act. The contention of the departmental representative were that from the assessee has kept cash at Rs. 33,00,000/- in her locker and stated that the source of income is retail business. The departmental representative further stated

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is party allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Smt. Asha Shankarlal Tanwani Vs. The Acit 01, Shankar Nagar, Pandhuna Central Circle 2(1) Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Nagpur Pan No.:Bnvpt 1763 J 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 Aforesaid Appeal 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 2019-20. 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.

money found and seized from locker. In the written submission the department has further relied on statement recorded U/s. 131 of the Act. The contention of the departmental representative was that the assessee has kept cash at Rs. 22,00,000/- in his locker and stated that the source of income is retail business. The departmental representative further stated that

HARSHA SANTOSH 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: 2019-20 Shri Harsha Santosh Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar,Pandhuna, Pandhurna, Nagpur Chhindwara 480334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Bobpt 5794 Q 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 Aforesaid Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Thoctober 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 2019-20. 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.

money found and seized from locker. In the written submission the department has further relied on statement recorded U/s. 131 of the Act. The contention of the departmental representative were that from the assessee has kept cash at Rs. 19,00,000/- in his locker and stated that the source of income is retail business. The departmental representative further stated

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.

money found and seized from locker. In the written submission the department has further relied on statement recorded U/s. 131 of the Act. The contention of the departmental representative was that the assessee has kept cash at Rs. 21,50,000/- in his locker and stated that the source of income is retail business. The departmental representative further stated that

ASHA 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 Smt. Asha Shankarlal Tanwani Vs. The Acit 01, Shankar Nagar, Pandhuna Central Circle 2(1) Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Nagpur Pan No.:Bnvpt 1763 J 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 Aforesaid Appeal 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. 2. On The Fact & Circumstances Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Income Determined By The Assessing Officer At Rs.15,02,106/- Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

money found and seized from locker. In the written submission the department has further relied on statement recorded U/s. 131 of the Act. The contention of the departmental representative were that from the assessee has kept cash at Rs. 22,00,000/- in his locker and stated that the source of income is retail business. The departmental representative further stated

HARSHA SANTOSH 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 Shri Harsha Santosh Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar,Pandhuna, Nagpur Pandhurna 480334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Bobpt 5794 Q 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 Aforesaid Appeal 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.

money found and seized from locker. In the written submission the department has further relied on statement recorded U/s. 131 of the Act. The contention of the departmental representative was that the assessee has kept cash at Rs. 19,00,000/- in locker of Nikita Tanwani and stated that the source of income is retail business. The departmental representative further

SHRI SHANKARLAL CHANDUMAL 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: 2019-20 Shri Shankarlal Chandumal Tanwani Vs. The Acit 41, Prop. Shankar Kirana, Tar Bazar, Central Circle 2(1) Main Road,Pandhurna 480334 (M.P.) Nagpur Pan No.:Aiqpt 1252 M 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 7Th 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 2019-20. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal 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 sundry creditors were referable to business income. Appellate Tribunal was not justified in deleting disallowance of unsubstantiated sundry creditors. Impugned order was liable to be set aside 17 Shankarlal Chandumal Tanwani vs ACIT, CC-2(1, Nagpur Appeal of department allowed. The finding of the said case is quite distinguishable from the Appellant’s case as in the caselaw

SHRI SANTOSH CHANDUMAL 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: 2019-20 Shri Santosh Tanwani Vs. The Acit A-56, Near Jain Bhavan, Bus Stand, Central Circle 2(1) Pandhurna,Chhindwara 480334 (M.P.) Nagpur Pan No.:Adapt 8743 N 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 /06/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred 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 2019-20. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal 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. 2. On The Fact & Circumstances Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Brokerage Income At Rs.

unexplained sundry creditors were referable to business income. Appellate Tribunal was not justified in deleting disallowance of unsubstantiated sundry creditors. Impugned order was liable to be set aside Appeal of department allowed. The finding of the said case is quite distinguishable from the Appellant’s case as in the caselaw the additions were made on the basis of discrepancy found

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

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LTD., NAGPUR

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

unexplained share application money, even though the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the credit-worthiness of the investors, during the assessment proceedings? 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,78,25,000/- towards undisclosed income, ignoring

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LTD., NAGPUR

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

unexplained share application money, even though the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the credit-worthiness of the investors, during the assessment proceedings? 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,78,25,000/- towards undisclosed income, ignoring

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LTD., NAGPUR

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

unexplained share application money, even though the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the credit-worthiness of the investors, during the assessment proceedings? 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,78,25,000/- towards undisclosed income, ignoring

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LTD., NAGPUR

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

unexplained share application money, even though the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the credit-worthiness of the investors, during the assessment proceedings? 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,78,25,000/- towards undisclosed income, ignoring

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

money under section 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

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

disallowing the appellant's unexplained cash deposit u/s 69A of the Act and income from undisclosed sources. Since the appellant failed to substantiate appellant's claim and addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 8,00,000/- is hereby confirmed.” The assessee being aggrieved with the order passed by the learned CIT(A), is in further appeal before

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

disallowing the appellant's unexplained cash deposit u/s 69A of the Act and income from undisclosed sources. Since the appellant failed to substantiate appellant's claim and addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 8,00,000/- is hereby confirmed.” The assessee being aggrieved with the order passed by the learned CIT(A), is in further appeal before

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

unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act as On money. The Ld. AR submitted that the documents are found from the premise of Saptagirhi Builder and Developers during survey proceeding and any presumption under section 132(4A) /292C arises against Saptagirhi Builder and Developers. The Ld. AR further submitted a detailed reply in support of its contention. Further

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

unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act as On money. The Ld. AR submitted that the documents are found from the premise of Saptagirhi Builder and Developers during survey proceeding and any presumption under section 132(4A) /292C arises against Saptagirhi Builder and Developers. The Ld. AR further submitted a detailed reply in support of its contention. Further