SMT RAJKUMARI DHARAMPAL AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 1(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

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

unexplained investment in silver & diamond. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Learned CIT(A) erred in maintaining addition of Rs.5,00,435/- made by AO as undisclosed income from House Property

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

house property income (i) ` 1,36,709 disallowed Agricultural income has been treated as business (ii) ` 2,52,393 income Dividend income claimed exempt u/s 10(34) (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

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

unexplained investment in immovable property, to Rs.9,61,000/- by admitting additional evidence under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. 9. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing." 18. Grounds raised in ITA no.293/Nag./2016, for the assessment year 2008-09 are as under:– “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

unexplained investment in immovable property, to Rs.9,61,000/- by admitting additional evidence under rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. 9. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing." 18. Grounds raised in ITA no.293/Nag./2016, for the assessment year 2008-09 are as under:– “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

A,C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.- 2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI DHARAMPAL R.AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

house property of Rs.1,05,000/- as business income\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.37,012/-and\ntreating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction u/s.24\nby the assessee\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances

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 being ITA no

house property of Rs.1,05,000/- as business income\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.37,012/-and\ntreating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction u/s.24\nby the assessee\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances

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 being ITA no

house property of Rs.1,05,000/- as business income\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.37,012/-and\ntreating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction u/s.24\nby the assessee\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

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

investment / deposit in cash and/or by cheques in bank account, etc., and (ii) by estimating income of construction business of M/s.Maria Construction. With regard to assessee's travel business of M.B. Travels also, the Assessing Officer made two types of addition – (i) on account of alleged unexplained deposit/receipt; and (ii) by estimating income of Travel business. Thus, in respect

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

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

investment / deposit in cash and/or by cheques in bank account, etc., and (ii) by estimating income of construction business of M/s.Maria Construction. With regard to assessee's travel business of M.B. Travels also, the Assessing Officer made two types of addition – (i) on account of alleged unexplained deposit/receipt; and (ii) by estimating income of Travel business. Thus, in respect

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

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

investment / deposit in cash and/or by cheques in bank account, etc., and (ii) by estimating income of construction business of M/s.Maria Construction. With regard to assessee's travel business of M.B. Travels also, the Assessing Officer made two types of addition – (i) on account of alleged unexplained deposit/receipt; and (ii) by estimating income of Travel business. Thus, in respect

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

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

investment / deposit in cash and/or by cheques in bank account, etc., and (ii) by estimating income of construction business of M/s.Maria Construction. With regard to assessee's travel business of M.B. Travels also, the Assessing Officer made two types of addition – (i) on account of alleged unexplained deposit/receipt; and (ii) by estimating income of Travel business. Thus, in respect

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

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

investment / deposit in cash and/or by cheques in bank account, etc., and (ii) by estimating income of construction business of M/s.Maria Construction. With regard to assessee's travel business of M.B. Travels also, the Assessing Officer made two types of addition – (i) on account of alleged unexplained deposit/receipt; and (ii) by estimating income of Travel business. Thus, in respect

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

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

investment / deposit in cash and/or by cheques in bank account, etc., and (ii) by estimating income of construction business of M/s.Maria Construction. With regard to assessee's travel business of M.B. Travels also, the Assessing Officer made two types of addition – (i) on account of alleged unexplained deposit/receipt; and (ii) by estimating income of Travel business. Thus, in respect

MS. FATEMA SHOEB SHUSSAIN ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD -2(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

unexplained investment in House Property. 11] Learned A.O. erred in not properly consider assessee's submission and various documents filed

MANOJ KUMAR VISHANDAS KAMNANI ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL 2(2) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

Unexplained Investment in Immovable property u/s 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. During the concerned A.Y., the assessee has purchased an immovable property being piece and parcel of land bearing 72A having area 743 sq mtrs Kh No 63, 64, and 69 Chikhli, 46 Sheet No 411/78 of House

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

Property Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITAT Bangalore dated February 9, 2018 published on March 3, 2018 on ITAT online. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that share capital and premium received are on capital account and therefore cannot be treated as income without appreciating the fact

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

Property Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITAT Bangalore dated February 9, 2018 published on March 3, 2018 on ITAT online. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that share capital and premium received are on capital account and therefore cannot be treated as income without appreciating the fact

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

Property Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITAT Bangalore dated February 9, 2018 published on March 3, 2018 on ITAT online. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that share capital and premium received are on capital account and therefore cannot be treated as income without appreciating the fact