HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

68 taxmann.com 298/239 Taxman 417/384 ITR 490 (Ker.), which relied on the aforesaid provision to decline exemption insofar as a similar situation in which no return was filed. In such circumstance, the failure to file a return under Section 139; even when a notice was issued under Section 142(1), is not a technical defect. We also

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

1. Addition of Rs. 5,20,84,000 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 1.1. The assessee‟s proprietorship

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

5. However, it should be kept in mind that 80P (1) and 80P (2) (1) shall never be read in isolation rather it should always be read in association with 80P (4). The selection 80P (4) is introduced by Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f 1-4-2007 to clear any doubt while claiming deduction under section 80P (1

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

5. However, it should be kept in mind that 80P (1) and 80P (2) (1) shall never be read in isolation rather it should always be read in association with 80P (4). The selection 80P (4) is introduced by Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f 1-4-2007 to clear any doubt while claiming deduction under section 80P (1

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

68 taxmann.com 298/239 Taxman 417/384 ITR 490 (Ker.), which\nrelied on the aforesaid provision to decline exemption insofar as a similar\nsituation in which no return was filed. In such circumstance, the failure to file\na return under Section 139; even when a notice was issued under Section\n142(1), is not a technical defect. We also

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

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

1: “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, assessment under section 153C dt.31-3-22 for AY12-13 is invalid; as per first proviso to section 153C, date of search shall be the date of receiving the documents/ material by the AO of the assessee; notice under section 153C dt.6-12-21 shall be considered the date

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

1: “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, assessment under section 153C dt.31-3-22 for AY12-13 is invalid; as per first proviso to section 153C, date of search shall be the date of receiving the documents/ material by the AO of the assessee; notice under section 153C dt.6-12-21 shall be considered the date

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

1: “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, assessment under section 153C dt.31-3-22 for AY12-13 is invalid; as per first proviso to section 153C, date of search shall be the date of receiving the documents/ material by the AO of the assessee; notice under section 153C dt.6-12-21 shall be considered the date

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

1: “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, assessment under section 153C dt.31-3-22 for AY12-13 is invalid; as per first proviso to section 153C, date of search shall be the date of receiving the documents/ material by the AO of the assessee; notice under section 153C dt.6-12-21 shall be considered the date

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

1: “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, assessment under section 153C dt.31-3-22 for AY12-13 is invalid; as per first proviso to section 153C, date of search shall be the date of receiving the documents/ material by the AO of the assessee; notice under section 153C dt.6-12-21 shall be considered the date

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 should be quashed. 5. Further, Ld AO submitted to our attention the gist of the Assessee’s submission, the same are extracted here below: GIST OF ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION IN RESPECT OF PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 680F THE ACT The above named assessee most respectfully submits as under: 1

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

5 ITA 178/NAG/ 2017 AXYKNO CAPITAL SERVICES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE- 1,NAGPUR any opportunity to the Appellant to cross examine Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, by solely relying on the statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain proceeded to complete the assessment by making an addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000 and Rs. 50,00,000 respectively under section

PRITAM SINGH CHARAN SINGH GUJJAR,NAGPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

1) to section 43CA and the subsequent amendment thereto relates back to the date on which the said section was made effective i.e. 01/4/2014. 7. In light of above findings, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition of Rs.6,81,500/- under section 43CA of the Act. The impugned order is quashed and appeal

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

5(3), JAIPUR VS 21st CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. NAGAPUR the proviso to section 68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1

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 the Act. The assessee had during the year received share application money amounting to ` 1,58,50,000, from the following companies:– ` 16,50,000 i) M/s Viraj Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ` 37,00,000 ii) M/s Aatharva Business Pvt. Ltd. iii) M/s Aditya Fashions Pvt. Ltd. ` 15,00,000 M/s Kavya Shares and Securities

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

Section 68 – Rs. 4 crores total – Unsecured loans from (i) Umang Trading (P) Ltd– Rs.1,00,00,000/- (ii) Sunderlal Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 3,00,00,000 6 140/NAG/2021 2018-19 Department 143(3) Not 1. Sec. 68 – Rs.1.65 CIT(A) Dt.23.4.2021 applicabl Crores Unsecured Order e Regular loan from Anubhav 6.9.2021 Assessme Vinimay Ltd. nt ACIT

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

Section 68 – Rs. 4 crores total – Unsecured loans from (i) Umang Trading (P) Ltd– Rs.1,00,00,000/- (ii) Sunderlal Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 3,00,00,000 6 140/NAG/2021 2018-19 Department 143(3) Not 1. Sec. 68 – Rs.1.65 CIT(A) Dt.23.4.2021 applicabl Crores Unsecured Order e Regular loan from Anubhav 6.9.2021 Assessme Vinimay Ltd. nt ACIT