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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the IT Act. Thus, respectfully following the above legal preposition, we are of the considered view that the addition made by Ld AO u/s 68 of the Act is liable to be deleted and order of Ld CIT(A) is set aside. Since, the addition u/s 68 is deleted on the legal ground; no further adjudication

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

34,000 4. 04/12/2015 2,10,00,000 10/12/2015 3–6 days Retails Pvt. Ltd. 1,88,66,000 22/06/2015 M/s. Veena 5. 18/06/2015 5,00,000 22/06/2015 5,00,000 4 days Gems M/s. Royal 07/09/2015 10,00,000 01/09/2015 50,00,000 6–27 6. Refinery Pvt. 08/09/2015 50,00,000 03/09/2015 1,40,000 days Ltd. 30/09/2015

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

68 & 69C and allowing exemption under section 10(38) of the Act. 12. In the result, appeal filed by the Department is dismissed. Order pronounced on 10.04.2026 under Rule 34

DCIT-CC-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. INDRAKUMAR GHISULAL AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

68 & 69C and allowing exemption under section 10(38) of the Act. 12. In the result, appeal by the Department stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 10.04.2026 under Rule 34

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

68; the Assessing Officer has not made any addition on „undisclosed asset‟ which is sine qua non/pre-condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153C for „relevant AY‟ as per „fourth proviso‟ to section 153A(1) read with Explanation-2, whether or not, in absence of this, the assessment made under section 153C

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

68; the Assessing Officer has not made any addition on „undisclosed asset‟ which is sine qua non/pre-condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153C for „relevant AY‟ as per „fourth proviso‟ to section 153A(1) read with Explanation-2, whether or not, in absence of this, the assessment made under section 153C

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

68; the Assessing Officer has not made any addition on „undisclosed asset‟ which is sine qua non/pre-condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153C for „relevant AY‟ as per „fourth proviso‟ to section 153A(1) read with Explanation-2, whether or not, in absence of this, the assessment made under section 153C

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

68; the Assessing Officer has not made any addition on „undisclosed asset‟ which is sine qua non/pre-condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153C for „relevant AY‟ as per „fourth proviso‟ to section 153A(1) read with Explanation-2, whether or not, in absence of this, the assessment made under section 153C

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

68; the Assessing Officer has not made any addition on „undisclosed asset‟ which is sine qua non/pre-condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153C for „relevant AY‟ as per „fourth proviso‟ to section 153A(1) read with Explanation-2, whether or not, in absence of this, the assessment made under section 153C

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon’Ble Accountant, Member Atul Manoharrao Yamsanwar V. Acit – Central Circle – 2(1) Plot No. 33, Manoharrao Room No. 312, 3Rd Floor Khare Town, Dharampeth Aayakar Bhavan, Telangkhedi Road Nagpur - 440010 Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440001 Pan – Aaepy4543Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

10. this connection cardinal point is to be noticed is whether loose sheets had any evidentiary value. In this connection we refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma [2024] 159 taxmann.com 179 (Karnataka), the Lordship have very clearly elucidated the matter which is reproduced below: - “21. Both

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

10] The appellant draw attention that section 68 is not applicable in the case of the appellant 1. The appellant has received an amount from the parties through proper banking channel; 2. The aforesaid amounts were received by the appellant against booking of property showroom for the sum of Rs. 65,00,000/- from Avance Technologies

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. SHRI VINOD BALBHADRA GOENKA,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit Vs. Shri Vinod Balbhadra Goenka Circle-4 247, Nandanvan Layout Nagpur Nagpur Pan No.:Aanpg 6841 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal By Revenue Against Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Nagpur Dated 30/03/2017 In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 4/198/16-17 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue In This Appeal Are As Under:

section 68 was not proper.” These judgements make it amply clear that the receipts that have already been shown by the assessee as income in the books of accounts/original returns and returns filed u/s 153A also cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits u/s 68. In the circumstances of the case and in view of aforecited judgements. I hold

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

10,000/- Reserves & Surplus 22,76,16,272/- 18,57,46,389/- 11,34,51,562/- The Lender companies pertaining to AY 2015-16 had the following financials: Umang Trading Pvt. Ltd. Surendra Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. Share Capital 18,43,80,000/- 7,77,00,000/- Reserves & Surplus 42,45,39,674/- 158,33,78,983/- 8.3 The appellant

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

10,000/- Reserves & Surplus 22,76,16,272/- 18,57,46,389/- 11,34,51,562/- The Lender companies pertaining to AY 2015-16 had the following financials: Umang Trading Pvt. Ltd. Surendra Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. Share Capital 18,43,80,000/- 7,77,00,000/- Reserves & Surplus 42,45,39,674/- 158,33,78,983/- 8.3 The appellant

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

10,000/- Reserves & Surplus 22,76,16,272/- 18,57,46,389/- 11,34,51,562/- The Lender companies pertaining to AY 2015-16 had the following financials: Umang Trading Pvt. Ltd. Surendra Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. Share Capital 18,43,80,000/- 7,77,00,000/- Reserves & Surplus 42,45,39,674/- 158,33,78,983/- 8.3 The appellant

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

10,000/- Reserves & Surplus 22,76,16,272/- 18,57,46,389/- 11,34,51,562/- The Lender companies pertaining to AY 2015-16 had the following financials: Umang Trading Pvt. Ltd. Surendra Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. Share Capital 18,43,80,000/- 7,77,00,000/- Reserves & Surplus 42,45,39,674/- 158,33,78,983/- 8.3 The appellant

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

10,000/- Reserves & Surplus 22,76,16,272/- 18,57,46,389/- 11,34,51,562/- The Lender companies pertaining to AY 2015-16 had the following financials: Umang Trading Pvt. Ltd. Surendra Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. Share Capital 18,43,80,000/- 7,77,00,000/- Reserves & Surplus 42,45,39,674/- 158,33,78,983/- 8.3 The appellant

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

10,000/- Reserves & Surplus 22,76,16,272/- 18,57,46,389/- 11,34,51,562/- The Lender companies pertaining to AY 2015-16 had the following financials: Umang Trading Pvt. Ltd. Surendra Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. Share Capital 18,43,80,000/- 7,77,00,000/- Reserves & Surplus 42,45,39,674/- 158,33,78,983/- 8.3 The appellant