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

147 r.w.s. 144B for A.Y. 2016-17. 1. In addition, it is seen that the source of investment in the purchase of property i.e. Rs. 34,28,333/- (1/3rd of the purchase consideration of Rs. 1,02,85,000/-) had been claimed by the assessee during reassessment proceedings to be out of old savings and receipts on sale of Agricultural

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

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

AXYKNO CAPITAL SERVICES LTD,,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, NAGPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”). The facts and grounds in both the appeals being similar in nature, the appeals are being disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. The grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals are as under:- 2 ITA 178/NAG/ 2017 AXYKNO CAPITAL SERVICES

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

reassessment under Section 147 without establishing the necessary condition of "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment, as required under the law. The appellant had disclosed all material facts during the original assessment, and there was no failure on its part to disclose any relevant information, making the reopening unjustified and invalid. 5. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

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

unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act and ` 20,67,364, on account of difference under section 69C of the Act. 5. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made following submissions:– “The appellant submitted the written submission which is reproduced as under: Assessee is a Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, carrying on the business

SUNRISE STRUCTURALS & ENGINEERING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roysunrise Structural & Acit/Dcit, Circle-4, Engineering P. Ltd., A10, Vs Nagpur Hingna Midc, Nagpur (Urban), Nagpur-440016 Pan : Aaccs 3220 M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R

Investments Pvt. Ltd. (P- 108 – 115) [Vol.- III] iv) 422 ITR 520 (Bom) PCIT vs. Vaman International Pvt. Ltd. (P- 116 – 123) (123) [Vol.- III] v) (2019) 104 taxmann.com 216 (Bom.) South Yarra Holdings vs. ITO (P- 167 – 170) (170) [Vol.- II] F) Invocation of section 147 of I.T. Act 1961 (amended) is strictly contingent upon the existence of actual

CHANDRAKUMAR MADHUSUDANJI JAJODIA,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment is general in nature and is not on specific transaction of assessee. Evidence placed on record is not found to be incorrect or false. Conclusion of escapement of income tantamount to mere change of opinion. Belief of escapement of income could not be derived on the basis of report of Investigation Wing being not specific to transaction of loan

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),NAGPUR, 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 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

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

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 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