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

c) Cost of improvement examined at Rs. 1,12,00,000/- was verifiable from the bank account and bills placed on record. i) P- 60-64 Bank Statement ii) P-85-105) Details of Expenses iii) P– 196 – 134 Bills & Vouchers F) It is evident that all the issues have been examined in detail and A.O. has taken possible view

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

C(A) unmistakably showed that the attempts by the AO, in ensuring the presence of Mr.Tarun Goyal for cross-examination by the assessees, did not succeed. The onus of ensuring the presence of Mr. Tarun Goyal, whom the assessees clearly stated that they did not know, could not have been shifted to the assessees. The onus was on the Revenue

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

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

C(A) unmistakably showed that the attempts by the AO, in ensuring the presence of Mr.Tarun Goyal for cross-examination by the assessees, did not succeed. The onus of ensuring the presence of Mr. Tarun Goyal, whom the assessees clearly stated that they did not know, could not have been shifted to the assessees. The onus was on the Revenue

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

C(A) unmistakably showed that the attempts by the AO, in ensuring the presence of Mr.Tarun Goyal for cross-examination by the assessees, did not succeed. The onus of ensuring the presence of Mr. Tarun Goyal, whom the assessees clearly stated that they did not know, could not have been shifted to the assessees. The onus was on the Revenue

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

C(A) unmistakably showed that the attempts by the AO, in ensuring the presence of Mr.Tarun Goyal for cross-examination by the assessees, did not succeed. The onus of ensuring the presence of Mr. Tarun Goyal, whom the assessees clearly stated that they did not know, could not have been shifted to the assessees. The onus was on the Revenue

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

C(A) unmistakably showed that the attempts by the AO, in ensuring the presence of Mr.Tarun Goyal for cross-examination by the assessees, did not succeed. The onus of ensuring the presence of Mr. Tarun Goyal, whom the assessees clearly stated that they did not know, could not have been shifted to the assessees. The onus was on the Revenue

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

C(A) unmistakably showed that the attempts by the AO, in ensuring the presence of Mr.Tarun Goyal for cross-examination by the assessees, did not succeed. The onus of ensuring the presence of Mr. Tarun Goyal, whom the assessees clearly stated that they did not know, could not have been shifted to the assessees. The onus was on the Revenue

SHRI PRAKASH JIWANDAS WANJARI,NAGPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

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

c) of sub-section (2) of section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. From the above reading of provisions of Section 273B, it is clear that the section

NARESH VASANTRAJ TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

house property deserve to be deleted in the interest of justice. 6) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is needed. 4. Ground no.2, relates to addition

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

house property deserve to be deleted in the interest of justice. 6) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is needed. 4. Ground no.2, relates to addition

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

house property deserve to be deleted in the interest of justice. 6) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is needed. 4. Ground no.2, relates to addition

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

house property deserve to be deleted in the interest of justice. 6) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is needed. 4. Ground no.2, relates to addition

SHREE MAYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

c) The property was having lot of litigation and disputes and any denial or rejection could have been fatal to the interest of the Assessee.” 8. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments made by the rival parties and perused the material available on record. The sale of three plots must be considered on an aggregate basis

SHREE MAYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

c) The property was having lot of litigation and disputes and any denial or rejection could have been fatal to the interest of the Assessee.” 8. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments made by the rival parties and perused the material available on record. The sale of three plots must be considered on an aggregate basis

DCIT-CC-1(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. R.B.S.D. AND F.N. DAS(EXPORT FIRM), VIZIANAGRAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

House was not used for the business purpose of the assessee. The AO has, in the assessment order, nowhere doubted about the source of expenditure of ₹74,51,358/-. Therefore, the addition should have been made u/s 37 and not u/s. 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Section 69C is reproduced hereunder for kind reference- “Unexplained expenditure, etc. Where

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.” “Section 153C. Assessment of income of any other person- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sec139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153, where the AO is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.” “Section 153C. Assessment of income of any other person- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sec139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153, where the AO is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.” “Section 153C. Assessment of income of any other person- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sec139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153, where the AO is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs