SHABBIR AHMED AHMED ALI,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESMENT CENTRY, DELHI

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

House Mortgage Society Ltd., City Survey No.659 of Mouza Mankapur, Nagpur at ` 80,50,000. Accordingly, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee furnished his reply along with its enclosures. The Assessing Officer, on a perusal of assessee’s reply, it was observed that the assessee has sold the said immovable property

SHRI PRAVEEN MANOHAR GHODKHANDE,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2),, NAGPUR

Appeal is allowed

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

house property situated at Plot No. 43, Mouza Bhamti has been purchased on 15/12/2008 from one Shri Pradeep Meshram. This contention of the appellant has not been found correct by the AO. As per information received from Nagpur Improvement Trust, who has informed by letter dt. 23/12/2010, the property under question is an open plot which has been regularised

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S THANJAVUR COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

216, Wardhman Nagar\nAayakar Bhavan, Civil Lines Nagpur - 440008\nTelangkhedi Road PAN – AABCM6900C\nNagpur - 440001\n(Appellant) (Respondent)\nAssessee Represented by : Shri Sachin V. Luthra, CA\nRevenue Represented by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, CIT(DR)\nDate of conclusion of hearing : 23.01.2025\nDate of pronouncement of order : 21.03.2025\nORDER\nPER K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nThe Revenue has filed these appeals challenging different

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

216, DevKripa Society, Wardhman Nagar Nagpur 440 008 PAN – AABCT8675J Assessee by : Shri Sachin V. Luthra Revenue by : Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar Date of Hearing – 14/05/2025 Date of Order – 15/05/2025 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The instant appeals by the Revenue are emanating from the separate impugned orders passed by the first appellate authority, the details

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

216, DevKripa Society, Wardhman Nagar Nagpur 440 008 PAN – AABCT8675J Assessee by : Shri Sachin V. Luthra Revenue by : Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar Date of Hearing – 14/05/2025 Date of Order – 15/05/2025 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The instant appeals by the Revenue are emanating from the separate impugned orders passed by the first appellate authority, the details

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, NAGPUR vs. M/S RAGHAV FINVEST PVT LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

216 CTR (SC) 195, as also by this Court in CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd., (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom.). In such circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal's finding that there is no justification in the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 neither suffers from any perversity nor gives rise

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. M/S NIHAL GITS PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

216 CTR (SC) 195, as also by this Court in CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd., (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom.). In such circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal's finding that there is no justification in the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 neither suffers from any perversity nor gives rise

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. VISHNU GILTS PVT.LT, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

216 CTR (SC) 195, as also by this Court in CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd., (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom.). In such circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal's finding that there is no justification in the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 neither suffers from any perversity nor gives rise