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

section 263, the learned PCIT himself has noted that 7/12 extract for the financial year 1980–81, 2011–12, 2016–17 and from 2017–18 to 2019–20, was available. The plot of land was sold on 22/03/2017 and the copy of 7/2 extract dated 18/03/2017, was a part of sale deed. Thus, it is crystal clear that the land

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

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

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

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

Housing Society, Gittikhadan, Nagpur, for a sale consideration of ` 37,00,000. The market value of the property was shown at ` 40,22,000, for stamp duty purposes. The Assessing Officer adopted the stamp duty valuation for computing profit and gains arising on sale of property by the assessee. The Assessing officer has not brought any evidence on record

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

81,500/-. In terms of percentage the difference is 7% approximately. The short contention of the assessee is that where the difference between the agreement value and the market value is less than 10% no addition should be made. 5. Similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Radhika Sales Corporation (supra). The Tribunal deleted

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

81,500/-. In terms of percentage the difference is 7% approximately. The short contention of the assessee is that where the difference between the agreement value and the market value is less than 10% no addition should be made. 5. Similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Radhika Sales Corporation (supra). The Tribunal deleted

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 U/s. 69C on addition of ` 74,51,358, and to make addition under section 37. 15. We have gone through order of the learned CIT(A) as well as details submitted we also found that the provisions of section 69C of the Act are not applicable in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has neither during entire

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

81,22,454 Relating to Travel Income from travel ` 1,02,030 business business Unexplained sale ` 23,23,334 transaction ` 24,25,364 ` 1,05,47,818 ` 1,05,47,818 Unexplained credit ` 39,82,675 in bank Relating to Maria Construction Estimated business ` 4,07,700 income 2009–10 ` 43,90,373 Relating to Travel Unexplained credit

MISS FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

81,22,454 Relating to Travel Income from travel ` 1,02,030 business business Unexplained sale ` 23,23,334 transaction ` 24,25,364 ` 1,05,47,818 ` 1,05,47,818 Unexplained credit ` 39,82,675 in bank Relating to Maria Construction Estimated business ` 4,07,700 income 2009–10 ` 43,90,373 Relating to Travel Unexplained credit

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

81,22,454 Relating to Travel Income from travel ` 1,02,030 business business Unexplained sale ` 23,23,334 transaction ` 24,25,364 ` 1,05,47,818 ` 1,05,47,818 Unexplained credit ` 39,82,675 in bank Relating to Maria Construction Estimated business ` 4,07,700 income 2009–10 ` 43,90,373 Relating to Travel Unexplained credit

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

81,22,454 Relating to Travel Income from travel ` 1,02,030 business business Unexplained sale ` 23,23,334 transaction ` 24,25,364 ` 1,05,47,818 ` 1,05,47,818 Unexplained credit ` 39,82,675 in bank Relating to Maria Construction Estimated business ` 4,07,700 income 2009–10 ` 43,90,373 Relating to Travel Unexplained credit

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

81,22,454 Relating to Travel Income from travel ` 1,02,030 business business Unexplained sale ` 23,23,334 transaction ` 24,25,364 ` 1,05,47,818 ` 1,05,47,818 Unexplained credit ` 39,82,675 in bank Relating to Maria Construction Estimated business ` 4,07,700 income 2009–10 ` 43,90,373 Relating to Travel Unexplained credit

MISS FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

81,22,454 Relating to Travel Income from travel ` 1,02,030 business business Unexplained sale ` 23,23,334 transaction ` 24,25,364 ` 1,05,47,818 ` 1,05,47,818 Unexplained credit ` 39,82,675 in bank Relating to Maria Construction Estimated business ` 4,07,700 income 2009–10 ` 43,90,373 Relating to Travel Unexplained credit

SHRI DEEPAK SURESH GADGE,,NAGPUR vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1 , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

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

houses thereon. The said land has been purchased by the firm, through the assessee as partner, vide purchase deed dated 05/09/2008, and correction deed dated 02/07/2009 for ` 22,50,000. According to the Assessing Officer, this land has been taken by the assessee into stock for previous year in his books of accounts. Since the assessee is engaged

M/S. HARIHAR INFRASTUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE- 1,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 60/Nag/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Harihar Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.; G-3, Amar Palace, Opp. Patwardhan Ground, Dhantoli, Nagpur-12. Pan : Aabch9888H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Shriram, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Headoo, Dr

section 234A, 234B & 234C of I T Act, 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 11. The assessee craves leave to add/alter any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of developing housing projects had filed its return of income 4 M/s. Harihar Infrastructure Development Corporation