AMARLAL THAVARDAS PANJWANI,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5, AMRAVATI

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 money u/s 69A of the I. T. Act. Penalty Proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated. Total income

SATISH KUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

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

money, bullion, Jewellary or other valuation articles in the books of accounts maintained. In view of the above fact we pray your honor to delete the amount of RS.5158766.00 added in our income as unexplained deposits. Satish Kumar Madanlal Gupta A.Y. 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12 2. The profit margin applied by honourable CIT(A) on our sales

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, GONDIA vs. SHRI SATISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA , GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

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

money, bullion, Jewellary or other valuation articles in the books of accounts maintained. In view of the above fact we pray your honor to delete the amount of RS.5158766.00 added in our income as unexplained deposits. Satish Kumar Madanlal Gupta A.Y. 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12 2. The profit margin applied by honourable CIT(A) on our sales

SATISH KUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

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

money, bullion, Jewellary or other valuation articles in the books of accounts maintained. In view of the above fact we pray your honor to delete the amount of RS.5158766.00 added in our income as unexplained deposits. Satish Kumar Madanlal Gupta A.Y. 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12 2. The profit margin applied by honourable CIT(A) on our sales

SATISH KUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

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

money, bullion, Jewellary or other valuation articles in the books of accounts maintained. In view of the above fact we pray your honor to delete the amount of RS.5158766.00 added in our income as unexplained deposits. Satish Kumar Madanlal Gupta A.Y. 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12 2. The profit margin applied by honourable CIT(A) on our sales

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, GONDIA vs. SHRI SATISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA , GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

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

money, bullion, Jewellary or other valuation articles in the books of accounts maintained. In view of the above fact we pray your honor to delete the amount of RS.5158766.00 added in our income as unexplained deposits. Satish Kumar Madanlal Gupta A.Y. 2009–10, 2010–11 and 2011–12 2. The profit margin applied by honourable CIT(A) on our sales

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL- CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. SHRI YASHWANT AJABRAO KHODKE, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

money of Rs.2,17,00,000/- on the above transactions and is being treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. The penalty u/s 271

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

money actually belonged to TPPL only, the same was added in TPPL on substantive basis and on protective basis in the case of assessee. It was observed that out of total receipt of Rs. 10,05,10,000/-, the assessee had invested back the sale proceeds of Rs.5,57,10,000/-only in TPPL and the same was added back

INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD -4, AMRAVATI vs. SHRI MAHESH SHANKAR SORATE , DARYAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus in so far as penalty under section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfaction and therefore, no such penalty could be levied." 2) DCIT, Chandigarh vs M/S Karan Empire Pvt. Ltd., Mohali on 16 February, 2017 (ITA No. ITA No.409/Chd/2011) which held as follows: Shri Mahesh Shankar Sorate ITA no.250/Nag./2018

PRAVIN SHRAWANLAL SAHU,NAGPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.199 & 200/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Pravin Shrawanlal Sahu, The Assessing Officer- Plot No.517, Sahu Bhawan, V Nfac. Chandabai Layout, Chandan S Nagar, Medical Square, Nagpur – 440009. Pan: Bbmps2413P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Ca Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/12/2023

271(1)(c) for concealing the particulars of his income and penalty u/s 271F for non-filing of return are issued separately. Interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C is being charged. Notice of demand being made the integral part of this order is being issued.” Pravin Shrawanlal Sahu [A] 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee carried appeal before

PRAVIN SHRAWANLAL SAHU,NAGPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.199 & 200/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Pravin Shrawanlal Sahu, The Assessing Officer- Plot No.517, Sahu Bhawan, V Nfac. Chandabai Layout, Chandan S Nagar, Medical Square, Nagpur – 440009. Pan: Bbmps2413P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Ca Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/12/2023

271(1)(c) for concealing the particulars of his income and penalty u/s 271F for non-filing of return are issued separately. Interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C is being charged. Notice of demand being made the integral part of this order is being issued.” Pravin Shrawanlal Sahu [A] 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee carried appeal before

PRABHAKAR RAMAJI AKARE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act separately. Aggrieved by the quantum addition, the assessee carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee, in response the notices issued by the learned CIT(A), filed

PRABHAKAR RAMAJI AKARE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFCER, WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act separately. Aggrieved by the quantum addition, the assessee carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee, in response the notices issued by the learned CIT(A), filed

MAITHILI MILIND RANE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c).\"\nAs the assessee has claimed that it has made investment of ₹\n13,82,000/- in the F.Y. 2012–13, the Ld. Commissioner, thus in\norder to verify the factual aspects, had sought for remand report\nfrom the A.O., who more or less reiterated the addition made by the\nA.O. Ld.Commissioner forwarded the remand report

SHRIKANT BHERULAL SHARMA LATE BHERULAL GIRDHARILAL SHARMA,WASHIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3 , AKOLA

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

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

u/s. 143(3) and ordered the reassessment of the said issue. However he added one more issue (which was not a part of limited scrutiny) viz. A.O. to examine cash balance of Rs.23,87,017/- and bank balance of Rs. 19,22,485/- in Akola Janta Coop. Bank Ltd. The Ld. Pr.C.I.T had passed the said order without properly applying

SHRIKANT BHERULAL SHARMA LATE BHERULAL GIRDHARILAL SHARMA ,WASHIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AKOLA

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

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

u/s. 143(3) and ordered the reassessment of the said issue. However he added one more issue (which was not a part of limited scrutiny) viz. A.O. to examine cash balance of Rs.23,87,017/- and bank balance of Rs. 19,22,485/- in Akola Janta Coop. Bank Ltd. The Ld. Pr.C.I.T had passed the said order without properly applying

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) and not applied section 271AAB(1A) which only be applicable for a searched person under section 132 for initiation of penalty where search has been initiated on/or after the date (i.e., 15/12/2016). search has been conducted on 11/07/2019 and the only section would be applicable for initiating penalty would be section 271AAB(1A) which

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) and not applied section 271AAB(1A) which only be applicable for a searched person under section 132 for initiation of penalty where search has been initiated on/or after the date (i.e., 15/12/2016). search has been conducted on 11/07/2019 and the only section would be applicable for initiating penalty would be section 271AAB(1A) which