ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER , NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

u/s 69C based on the report of the Department Valuation Officer. The appellant had challenged the said addition before the CIT(A), who has granted the relief by observation as follows: “The case of the appellant is further strengthened by the fact that the construction of the project was not executed by the appellant itself but was given on back

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA RADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

u/s 69C based on the report of the Department Valuation Officer. The appellant had challenged the said addition before the CIT(A), who has granted the relief by observation as follows: “The case of the appellant is further strengthened by the fact that the construction of the project was not executed by the appellant itself but was given on back

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

u/s 69C based on the report of the Department Valuation Officer. The appellant had challenged the said addition before the CIT(A), who has granted the relief by observation as follows: “The case of the appellant is further strengthened by the fact that the construction of the project was not executed by the appellant itself but was given on back

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

u/s 69C based on the report of the Department Valuation Officer. The appellant had challenged the said addition before the CIT(A), who has granted the relief by observation as follows: “The case of the appellant is further strengthened by the fact that the construction of the project was not executed by the appellant itself but was given on back

RAMKRUSHNA ZILBAJI THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WRAD -4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment of income under provisions . of Section 147· read with S.143(2) of Ramkrishna Zimbaji Thakre for A.Y.2010-11 and in the matter of addition to income on account of cash deposits in bank accounts under section 68 which are jointly held along with spouse of the assessee and in the matter of rejecting the explanation that said deposits are made

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

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

U/s. 68 could not be made on the ground that appellant failed to explain the source of credit. 8. Once the authorities have got all the details including the names and addresses of the company, their PAN, Name of bank from which the alleged investor received invested the money, then it cannot be termed as bogus. The issue is covered

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

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

U/s. 56(1) Conclusion- Share premium realized from the issue of share is of capital in nature and forms part of the share capital of the company and therefore cannot be taxed as a Revenue receipt. The assessee has further places reliance of following judgments during the appellant proceedings 1. (1980) 125 ITR 0713 (SC) Kishanchad Chellaram –Vs.- Commissioner

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

147(b)” were inadvertently filled in the prescribed form, instead of sec147 while obtaining the sanction from the Jt.CIT. It is further submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the same is a curable defect u/s292B. Therefore, the impugned notice cannot be held to be bad for mere incorrect mentioning of sec on account of the mistake. 8. There

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

147(b)” were inadvertently filled in the prescribed form, instead of sec147 while obtaining the sanction from the Jt.CIT. It is further submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the same is a curable defect u/s292B. Therefore, the impugned notice cannot be held to be bad for mere incorrect mentioning of sec on account of the mistake. 8. There

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

147(b)” were inadvertently filled in the prescribed form, instead of sec147 while obtaining the sanction from the Jt.CIT. It is further submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the same is a curable defect u/s292B. Therefore, the impugned notice cannot be held to be bad for mere incorrect mentioning of sec on account of the mistake. 8. There

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

147(b)” were inadvertently filled in the prescribed form, instead of sec147 while obtaining the sanction from the Jt.CIT. It is further submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the same is a curable defect u/s292B. Therefore, the impugned notice cannot be held to be bad for mere incorrect mentioning of sec on account of the mistake. 8. There

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

147(b)” were inadvertently filled in the prescribed form, instead of sec147 while obtaining the sanction from the Jt.CIT. It is further submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the same is a curable defect u/s292B. Therefore, the impugned notice cannot be held to be bad for mere incorrect mentioning of sec on account of the mistake. 8. There

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

147(b)” were inadvertently filled in the prescribed form, instead of sec147 while obtaining the sanction from the Jt.CIT. It is further submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the same is a curable defect u/s292B. Therefore, the impugned notice cannot be held to be bad for mere incorrect mentioning of sec on account of the mistake. 8. There