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

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

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

property or investment and submit a copy of report to him.‖ 17. Thus no reference to Valuation Officer by Assessing Officer. It is worthwhile to note that in order under section 155(15) of the Act, the 18 SushilaBhauraoDeshmukh ITAno.76/Nag./2022 Assessing Officer has accepted the claim of assessee at ` 112 lakh in set aside proceedings. The learned PCIT

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

c) Amount of loan Accepted during the year:- The assessee had submitted before the AO the details of loan accepted during the year including confirmation ledgers, which highlighted the amount of loan accepted, interest paid & loan repayments during the year. d) Amount of loan repaid during the year:- Your kindness may kindly appreciate that most of the loans were repaid

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

c) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. The learned CIT(A) stated in his order that the learned Authorised Representative has filed explanation for the deposits in the bank account which is summarised in the table below:– Source explained by the appellant Total Bank Account Receipts S.no. details Number Income Loan

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

c) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. The learned CIT(A) stated in his order that the learned Authorised Representative has filed explanation for the deposits in the bank account which is summarised in the table below:– Source explained by the appellant Total Bank Account Receipts S.no. details Number Income Loan

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

c) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. The learned CIT(A) stated in his order that the learned Authorised Representative has filed explanation for the deposits in the bank account which is summarised in the table below:– Source explained by the appellant Total Bank Account Receipts S.no. details Number Income Loan

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

c) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. The learned CIT(A) stated in his order that the learned Authorised Representative has filed explanation for the deposits in the bank account which is summarised in the table below:– Source explained by the appellant Total Bank Account Receipts S.no. details Number Income Loan

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

VINAY RAMSHARANDAS AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

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

C) In the regular assessment framed u/s 143(3) reasons for selection under CASS was to verify capital gain declared in the return. Necessary enquiries were made by issue of necessary notice u/s 142(1) wherein details of sources of income, capital introduction and specific detail of capital gain was called and examined. From Notice u/s 142(1

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