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

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

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

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, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from the assessment year 2013-14. 2.20 Both the above judgment of Jurisdictional Bombay High Court of Gagandeep Infrastructure and ApeakInfotech was followed

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

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

11. After having heard the parties at length, we find that additions in this case were made on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that during the year under consideration, the assessee had received unsecured loans of aggregated amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000. The details of which

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 which are jointly held along with spouse of the assessee and in the matter of rejecting the explanation that said deposits are made by other co holder of the bank account out of sale proceeds of the agriculture land and in the matter of arbitrarily rejecting the evidences submitted by assessee being unregistered agreement to sale holding

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

5. Heard Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Assessing Officer directed to make the addition of Rs. 33,55,011/- under section 68 of the Income-tax Act with respect to 17 lenders. However, it has been found that with respect to most

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

section 68 of the Act, inspite of the fact that the initial onus laid down on the Appellant was duly discharged ?. 10. Submissions made have been considered. 11. Regarding Smt. Savitri Thakur, it is seen that she had issued cheque payment of Rs. 14 lakhs dated 21- 7-2009 to the Appellant. Prior to the issuance of the cheques

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

5. Heard Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the\nrevenue. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Assessing Officer\ndirected to make the addition of Rs. 33,55,011/- under section 68 of the\nIncome-tax Act with respect to 17 lenders. However, it has been found that\nwith respect to most

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

11 and was not justified in deleting the addition made under section 68 of the Act. The learned D.R. thus submitted that the relief granted by the learned CIT(A) be reversed and the order passed by the Assessing Officer be restored. 5

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

5. Heard Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the\nrevenue. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Assessing Officer\ndirected to make the addition of Rs. 33,55,011/- under section 68 of the\nIncome-tax Act with respect to 17 lenders. However, it has been found that\nwith respect to most

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

11. We find that the impugned assessment year under consideration is prior to the assessment year 2013-14 and thus the provisions of proviso to section 68 of the Act, is not applicable. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vide judgment dated 20/03/2017, at Para–(e) at Page–5

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

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

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX 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

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

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 no\nexplanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation

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

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 no\nexplanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation

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

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 no\nexplanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation