DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

68,022 which includes depreciation of ` 5,57,40,754. The Assessing Officer invoking provisions of section 11(6) of the Act disallowed depreciation by holding that the assessee trust had already claimed the purchase of asset as an application of income. 28. Before the learned CIT(A), it was the submissions of the assessee trust that it only

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

68,022 which includes depreciation of ` 5,57,40,754. The Assessing Officer invoking provisions of section 11(6) of the Act disallowed depreciation by holding that the assessee trust had already claimed the purchase of asset as an application of income. 28. Before the learned CIT(A), it was the submissions of the assessee trust that it only

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

68,07,020, as disallowance on account of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and addition of ` 2,77,22,160 Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank A.Y. 2014–15 & 2015–16 on account of bad debts written–off under section 41(4) of the Act claimed by the assessee Bank. The assessee being not satisfied with

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

68,07,020, as disallowance on account of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and addition of ` 2,77,22,160 Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank A.Y. 2014–15 & 2015–16 on account of bad debts written–off under section 41(4) of the Act claimed by the assessee Bank. The assessee being not satisfied with

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

D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 14/05/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2018–19, arising out of assessment order dated 17/08/2021, under section 143 r/w section 144B

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

D E R PER BENCH These captioned appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even date 18/01/2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11

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

D E R PER BENCH These captioned appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even date 18/01/2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11

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

D E R PER BENCH These captioned appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even date 18/01/2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11

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

D E R PER BENCH These captioned appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even date 18/01/2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11

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

D E R PER BENCH These captioned appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even date 18/01/2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11

VISHAL KISHORILAL JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

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

68 but made the final addition u/s 69 without providing the opportunity to the appellant to respond, violating natural justice. 4. The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,49,00,285/- u/s 69 of the Act, without proper consideration of the explanations and documentary evidence submitted by the appellant. 5. The Ld CIT(A) erred

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

d. The assessments of the Appellant were reopened under section 147 of the Act primarily for the reason that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment on the ground that the Appellant is a 4 ITA 178/NAG/ 2017 AXYKNO CAPITAL SERVICES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE- 1,NAGPUR beneficiary of accommodation entries provided by one Shri Praveen Kumar Jain

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

D. Paramshakti Steels Ltd. Sr. Particulars Page no. no. 1. Ledger Confirmation 1 2. Relevant Period Bank Statement 2 – 41 3. ITR Acknowledgement 42 4. Computation of Income 43 5. Audited Financial Statement 44 – 63 6. Tax Audit Report 64 – 71 E. Satguru Enterprises Sr. Particulars Page no. no. 1. Ledger Confirmation 72 2. Relevant Period Bank Statement

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

11. Coming to the merits of the issue on hand, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer was erred in making additions towards share application money under section 68 of the Act, ignoring evidence filed by the assessee to prove identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the parties. The learned Authorised Representative further

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

11, 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–16 and 2017-18, respectively. Since all the above-mentioned appeals pertains to the same assessee involving common issues arising out of identical facts and circumstances, except variation in figures, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this

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

D E R PER K.M.ROY, A.M. These appeals have been preferred by the revenue and the cross objections by the assessee, details of which are given below: ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 ITA No. NAME OF ASSESS DATE OF CIT’S ORDER A.Y UNDER CHALLENGE 1

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

D E R PER K.M.ROY, A.M. These appeals have been preferred by the revenue and the cross objections by the assessee, details of which are given below: ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 ITA No. NAME OF ASSESS DATE OF CIT’S ORDER A.Y UNDER CHALLENGE 1

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

D E R PER K.M.ROY, A.M. These appeals have been preferred by the revenue and the cross objections by the assessee, details of which are given below: ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 ITA No. NAME OF ASSESS DATE OF CIT’S ORDER A.Y UNDER CHALLENGE 1

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

D E R PER K.M.ROY, A.M. These appeals have been preferred by the revenue and the cross objections by the assessee, details of which are given below: ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 ITA No. NAME OF ASSESS DATE OF CIT’S ORDER A.Y UNDER CHALLENGE 1