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

PRITAM SINGH CHARAN SINGH GUJJAR,NAGPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

iii) Stalwart Impex Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO, ITA No. 5752/Mum/2019, order dated 02/07/2021 (Mum. Trib.); and iv) Maria Fernandes Cheryl v/s ITO (I.T) [2021] 85 ITR 674 (Mum- Trib). 10. We have heard the arguments of rival parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The learned A.R. pointed out that

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

iii) ` 20,15,681 treated as income from other sources Unsecured loan as under treated unexplained ` 68,02,624 (iv) Dharampal Agarwal HUF Rs. 59,12,624 Agarwal Enterprises Rs. 8,90,000 Sundry Creditors treated as unexplained ` 2,10,060 (v) Interest paid disallowed (vi) ` 7,86,217 Adhoc disallowances out of (vii) following expenses Remuneration

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

26 PM – 110 PAGES BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT MMBER ITA no.113/Nag./2024 ITA no.114/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year – 2014–15) (Assessment Year – 2015-16) ITA no./115/Nag./2024 ITA no.116/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year – 2016–17) (Assessment Year – 2017–18) ITA no.117/Nag./2024 ITA no.118/Nag./2024 Assessment Year – 2018–19 (Assessment Year

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

26 PM – 110 PAGES BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT MMBER ITA no.113/Nag./2024 ITA no.114/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year – 2014–15) (Assessment Year – 2015-16) ITA no./115/Nag./2024 ITA no.116/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year – 2016–17) (Assessment Year – 2017–18) ITA no.117/Nag./2024 ITA no.118/Nag./2024 Assessment Year – 2018–19 (Assessment Year

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

26 PM – 110 PAGES BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT MMBER ITA no.113/Nag./2024 ITA no.114/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year – 2014–15) (Assessment Year – 2015-16) ITA no./115/Nag./2024 ITA no.116/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year – 2016–17) (Assessment Year – 2017–18) ITA no.117/Nag./2024 ITA no.118/Nag./2024 Assessment Year – 2018–19 (Assessment Year

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

26 PM – 110 PAGES BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT MMBER ITA no.113/Nag./2024 ITA no.114/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year – 2014–15) (Assessment Year – 2015-16) ITA no./115/Nag./2024 ITA no.116/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year – 2016–17) (Assessment Year – 2017–18) ITA no.117/Nag./2024 ITA no.118/Nag./2024 Assessment Year – 2018–19 (Assessment Year

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

26 PM – 110 PAGES BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT MMBER ITA no.113/Nag./2024 ITA no.114/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year – 2014–15) (Assessment Year – 2015-16) ITA no./115/Nag./2024 ITA no.116/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year – 2016–17) (Assessment Year – 2017–18) ITA no.117/Nag./2024 ITA no.118/Nag./2024 Assessment Year – 2018–19 (Assessment Year

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

26 PM – 110 PAGES BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT MMBER ITA no.113/Nag./2024 ITA no.114/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year – 2014–15) (Assessment Year – 2015-16) ITA no./115/Nag./2024 ITA no.116/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year – 2016–17) (Assessment Year – 2017–18) ITA no.117/Nag./2024 ITA no.118/Nag./2024 Assessment Year – 2018–19 (Assessment Year

SHRI VISHWAKARAMA JEWELLERS ,AKOLA vs. DCIT AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

house property, (iii) 'profits and gains from business or profession', (iv) 'capital gains' and (v) 'income from other sources cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon'ble Gujarat High

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

iii) Charchit Agarwal Vs ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Delhi) 6 Smt. AanjuSaraf 8. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue relating to claim made under section 80IB of the Act has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2005–06, 2006–07 and 2007–08 respectively. Therefore

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

iii) Charchit Agarwal Vs ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Delhi) 6 Smt. AanjuSaraf 8. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue relating to claim made under section 80IB of the Act has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2005–06, 2006–07 and 2007–08 respectively. Therefore

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

iii) Charchit Agarwal Vs ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Delhi) 6 Smt. AanjuSaraf 8. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue relating to claim made under section 80IB of the Act has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2005–06, 2006–07 and 2007–08 respectively. Therefore

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

iii) Charchit Agarwal Vs ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Delhi) 6 Smt. AanjuSaraf 8. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue relating to claim made under section 80IB of the Act has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2005–06, 2006–07 and 2007–08 respectively. Therefore