DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCEL-1(2, NAGPUR vs. M/S. VIBRANT GLOBAL CAPITAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act in Para–5 to 9 as under:– “5. Question (B) and (C) require consideration together. On account of certain cash credits, the Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs.3,54,70,163/-. Out of this total amount, aggregate amount of cash credit in respect of 10 persons of Rs. 1,76,83,518/-, according

SUMIT PRAKASHRAO FULZELE,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2 , CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

deposit out of cash withdrawals from the same account- no urgency in making further withdrawals if having sufficient cash balance with him. 4. Manoj Aggarwal vs. DCIT 113 ITD 377 (ITAT-Delhi) (2008) - where assessee not maintaining books of account, though Section 68

RAVINDRA MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE , AKOLA

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

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

cash deposits in their bank accounts as unexplained investments of those creditors under section 69. Further, we may point out that section 68

ITO, WARD- 1)1), NAGPUR vs. AXYKNO ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 68 of IT Act, 1961. 4.3.1 The AO has dealt the issue relating to unexplained credits on account of share application money at para 10 of the assessment order. The AO has noticed that during the course of search proceedings in the case of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain his statement was recorded

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

cash deposits in their bank accounts as unexplained investments of those creditors under section 69. Further, we may point out that section 68

SANDIP DOHARE,GONDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, GONDIA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

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

deposits of ` 1,16,22,557 [` 2,43,83,485 (–) Rs.1,27,60,928]. Vide above show cause notice, the assessee was also asked to explain as to why an amount of ` 1,16,22,557, should not be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68

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

cash deposits in their bank accounts as\nunexplained investments of those creditors under section 69.\nFurther, we may point out that section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3),, NAGPUR vs. M/S. 21ST CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

cash credit. (f) In the above circumstances and particularly in view of the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal, the proposed question of law does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus not entertained. 2) CIT vs. Orchid Industries (P.) Ltd. [2017] 397 ITR 136 (Bom) had held as under

NIKITA SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ms. Nikita Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Borpt 4644 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /62022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

deposits wherein the assessing officer 14 Nikita Shankarlal Tanwani vs ACIT, CentralCircle 2(1), Nagpur had made addition of peak cash in hand of Rs. 36,80,000 under section 68

ANKIT SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Ankit Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Biapt 4756 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 / 6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

deposits wherein the assessing officer had made addition of peak cash in hand of Rs. 36,80,000/- under section 68

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. MAKARAND MADHUSUDAN JOSHI, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act for withdrawal of cash from IOB Account is concerned, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had questioned the reasons for cash deposit

SHRI PRAKASH JIWANDAS WANJARI,NAGPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

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

section 143(3) by accepting the returned income of the appellant for AY 2011-12 and no addition is made on account of cash deposits made by the appellant in his bank account, as the AO was duly satisfied about the fact that all these deposits were made from the cash loan accepted by the appellant and they are from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. SHIKHA INDRAKUMAR AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

deposited in respondent's bank account. In 13 view thereof, the CIT[A] found there was no reason to add the capital gains as unexplained cash credit under section 68

THE DY. C.I.T., CENTRAL CIR. 2(1),, NAGPUR vs. M/S MAHAVIR COAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

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

deposited this amount.” Ratio laid down by the aforesaid judgments fully supports the submission of the assessee. Respectfully following the judgments referred to 14 M/s. Mahavir Coal Resources Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year – 2010–11 hereinabove, we hold that addition made in assessee’s case under section 68 of the Act, is not in accordance with law and is unjustified

INCOME TAX OFFICER, YAVATMAL vs. SANJAY BANSILAL JAISWAL, YAVATMAL

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

68,210/- on 12/10/2018. The case of the appellant was selected limited scrutiny for the reasons: "Large cash deposits in bank account(s)". Notices u/s 142(1) of the Act issued by the AO along with annexure were duly served upon the assessee through e-mail/e- filing portal on the registered e-mail id wherein assessee asked

THE DY. C.I.T., CENTRAL CIR. 2(1),, NAGPUR vs. M/S MAHAVIR COAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

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

Section 68 of the Act, for any cash credit appearing in the books of assessee, the assessee is required to prove the following- (a) Identity of the creditor (b) Genuineness of the transaction (c) Credit-worthiness of the party (i) In this case, the assessee has already proved the identity of the share applicant by furnishing their PAN, copy

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

cash deposits in their bank accounts as\nunexplained investments of those creditors under section 69.\nFurther, we may point out that section 68

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

cash deposits in their bank accounts as\nunexplained investments of those creditors under section 69.\nFurther, we may point out that section 68 under which the addition has\nbeen made by the Assessing Officer reads as under:\n\"68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee\nmaintained for any previous year. and the assessee offers