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

reassess taking into consideration the other material in\nrespect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in\nrespect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the\nAO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search\nunder Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act. 1961.\nHowever, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

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

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

reassess taking into consideration the other material in\nrespect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in\nrespect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the\nAO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search\nunder Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act. 1961.\nHowever, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

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

reassess taking into consideration the other material in\nrespect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in\nrespect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the\nAO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search\nunder Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act. 1961.\nHowever, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

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

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

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

reassess taking into consideration the other material in\nrespect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in\nrespect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the\nAO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search\nunder Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act. 1961.\nHowever, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

PARTH ENTERPRISES ,BHADRAWATI vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

unexplained investment without proper justification and without appreciating the fact that the property in question is rural agricultural land, which is not a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As such, neither Section 56(2)(x) nor Section 69 is applicable in this case. 3. The learned CIT(A), NFAC failed to appreciate that

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDLAL B MALOO, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

reassessment proceedings appellant has not satisfactorily explained the source of investment. As pointed out by AD no books of accounts are maintained. There are no details of the shares with the date of acquisition and cost of acquisition. There are no details even of share holding as on 31-03-2003 and 31- 03-2004. Appellant has furnished a cash

VAISHNAV YASHWANT ASHTANKAR,NAGPUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - NAGPUR 2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings. The assessee's claim that the difference in market value and purchase consideration being 14.1% i.e. less than 15%, should be accepted as being nominal and relied upon case laws i) M/s LGW Limited Vs ITO Ward 2(3) ITA No. 267/Kol/2013 (2015) ii) M/s John Fowler (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income

MITHILESH JAGDEO SINGH PAWAR,AMRAVATI vs. ITO WARD-5, AMRAVATI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Mithilesh Jagdeo Singh Ito Ward-5 Pawar, Besides Dps, Vs. Ghatladki, Chandur Bazar, Saturna Road, Maharashtra - 444720. Maharashtra - 444605. Pan: Bpfpp6167L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Mrudul Bhusari, Ld. Adv {Ld. Amicus Curie} Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry:

unexplained investment u/s 69A of the Act. 6. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of sending four notices, the Assessee except seeking adjournment on last occasion, eventually made no compliance and therefore in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeal filed by the Assessee on merit as well

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

reassessment is bad in law and the addition made in the assessment order is illegal as no incriminating document or unaccounted income was found during the course of search in the case of assessee. We would be submitting further while discussing the individual unds for addition made in the Assessment order. GROUND NO. 2; That the learned AO erred

SMT. NALINI SHYAM MOUNDEKAR,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 4(1),, NAGPUR

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand allowed as above

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

unexplained investment. The AO has discussed the issues on the basis of which the additions were made in Para Nos. 10 to 18 of the assessment order. 7. It is quite manifest from the above that there was a proper service of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The appellant refused to accept the notice from the Notice Server

VIJAY VINOD DURAGKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

unexplained and making the addition under section 69 of the Act. The source of investment 2 Vijaya Vinod Duragkar in property being from explainable sources and the source of investment in property being held to be explained in the hands of the co-owner of the property, the addition so made is illegal and liable to be deleted

M/S GUPTA CORPORATION PVT LTD ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. 4. We note that the AO found the assessee increased a share capital, received share premium and sundry creditors which is evident from para 3 of the assessment order. The AO asked the assessee to give details of share capital, share premium and sundry creditors in order to justify the identity, creditworthiness