DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S. FUELCO COAL INDIA LTD., NAGPUR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

68 of the Act and held that creditworthiness of the investor M/s Saphire Marketing Pvt Ltd and genuineness of the transaction are not established. 4.1.2 I have carefully perused the assessment order and also considered the submissions of the AR on this issue and I tend to disagree with the AO on various counts. Firstly, it is seen from record

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

section 68 of the Act at ₹ 2,84,35,115.\n5. The assessee made investment in shares amounting to ₹ 20,61,59,037. The assessee

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

Section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961”. The assessee strongly objects to the said allegation made in the report. As the list of paper companies, list of dummy directors and even the statements of persons involved in providing accommodation entries provided, nowhere the name of assesse or company “Parag Shilpa Infrastructure Ltd.” features in the list. The assessee

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

section 68 in respect of amount deposited in bank contending that said amount came from sale of wearing apparel and traditional silver utensils, since there was no evidence and material to establish sale or inheritance, etc., impugned addition made by authorities below was to be confirmed. 11. Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1992] 2 SCC 378 (SC) wherein

SHRI NANDKUMAR RATANLAL KOTHARI,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-7(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 68 has not been duly discharged. The action of the Ld. AO in adding the amount of claimed to have been received in cash from the said party cannot be questioned and he has been correctly added the said amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- to the income of the appellant as unexplained cash credit. 7.6 The situation

ACIT ,CIRCLE (EXEMPTION ),NAGPUR , NAGPUR vs. M/S SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL ,AMRAVAI , AMRAVATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Acit, Vs. M/S. Sipnashikshan Prasarak Mandal Circle (Exemption), Badnera Road Amravati Amravati Pan No.:Aacts 1266 J Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shripiyushkolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shrihimeshdemble (Ca) Date Of Hearing: 26/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-4, Nagpur Dated 27/03/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 Wherein The Department Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

115 BBC(3) other than the words finding place therein. The definition is that it means a voluntary contribution referred to in section 2(24)(iia), where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the contributor and such other particulars as may be prescribed. No other particular

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

68,82,917 constituted excess claim, which was disallowed. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Com- missioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who agreed with the Assessing Officer and, accordingly, took the view that once the management in its books spread over the amount of Rs. 10,02,23,735 over a period of 60 months then

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

68,82,917 constituted excess claim, which was disallowed. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Com- missioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who agreed with the Assessing Officer and, accordingly, took the view that once the management in its books spread over the amount of Rs. 10,02,23,735 over a period of 60 months then

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

115 taxmann.com 165 (Bombay) ACIT V Splendor Landbase Limited ( ITA No. 2461/Del/2016) CIT V. B G Shirke Construction Technology ( P) Ltd. (2017) 246 Taxman 300 ( Bombay) ACIT V. V N Deva Doss (2013) 32 Taxmann.com 133 Naresh T Wadhwani V DCIT (2014) 68 SOT 235 ( Pune-Trib) ITO V. Gajraj Constructions (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 18 Malpani Estates V ACIT

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

115 taxmann.com 165 (Bombay) ACIT V Splendor Landbase Limited ( ITA No. 2461/Del/2016) CIT V. B G Shirke Construction Technology ( P) Ltd. (2017) 246 Taxman 300 ( Bombay) ACIT V. V N Deva Doss (2013) 32 Taxmann.com 133 Naresh T Wadhwani V DCIT (2014) 68 SOT 235 ( Pune-Trib) ITO V. Gajraj Constructions (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 18 Malpani Estates V ACIT

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

115 taxmann.com 165 (Bombay) ACIT V Splendor Landbase Limited ( ITA No. 2461/Del/2016) CIT V. B G Shirke Construction Technology ( P) Ltd. (2017) 246 Taxman 300 ( Bombay) ACIT V. V N Deva Doss (2013) 32 Taxmann.com 133 Naresh T Wadhwani V DCIT (2014) 68 SOT 235 ( Pune-Trib) ITO V. Gajraj Constructions (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 18 Malpani Estates V ACIT

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

115 taxmann.com 165 (Bombay) ACIT V Splendor Landbase Limited ( ITA No. 2461/Del/2016) CIT V. B G Shirke Construction Technology ( P) Ltd. (2017) 246 Taxman 300 ( Bombay) ACIT V. V N Deva Doss (2013) 32 Taxmann.com 133 Naresh T Wadhwani V DCIT (2014) 68 SOT 235 ( Pune-Trib) ITO V. Gajraj Constructions (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 18 Malpani Estates V ACIT

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

115 taxmann.com 165 (Bombay) ACIT V Splendor Landbase Limited ( ITA No. 2461/Del/2016) CIT V. B G Shirke Construction Technology ( P) Ltd. (2017) 246 Taxman 300 ( Bombay) ACIT V. V N Deva Doss (2013) 32 Taxmann.com 133 Naresh T Wadhwani V DCIT (2014) 68 SOT 235 ( Pune-Trib) ITO V. Gajraj Constructions (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 18 Malpani Estates V ACIT

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

115 taxmann.com 165 (Bombay) ACIT V Splendor Landbase Limited ( ITA No. 2461/Del/2016) CIT V. B G Shirke Construction Technology ( P) Ltd. (2017) 246 Taxman 300 ( Bombay) ACIT V. V N Deva Doss (2013) 32 Taxmann.com 133 Naresh T Wadhwani V DCIT (2014) 68 SOT 235 ( Pune-Trib) ITO V. Gajraj Constructions (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 18 Malpani Estates V ACIT

ASSTT. CIT, CIR- 7, NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEWQUEST CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

68,734/- on sale of its investment without appreciating the fact that mere showing of shares under investment do not tantamount to investment surplus on sale of which would be capital gains.? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing assessee’s claim of Brand

M/S. ANURADHA SUGAR MILLS LIMITED,,BULDHANA vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AKOLA CIRCLE,AKOLA,, AKOLA

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

68,47,187/- treated as preoperative expenses, has not taken into account since from the commencement of the business on account of depreciation asset in the balance sheet and considered as “deferred revenue expenditure”. It is pertinent to mention that the contents of schedule M of “Significant Accounting Policies” as per S. No. (g) remarks of the auditor

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA COAL(INDIA) LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

68. Ground No.1 raised in this appeal is identical to ground No.1 of the Revenue‟s appeal being ITA No.477/NAG/2014. Since we have dismissed the ground No.1 of the Revenue‟s appeal and answered the issue in favour of the assessee, ground No.1 raised in this appeal is also dismissed. 69. Ground No.2, 3 and 4 raised in this appeal

ASSTT.C,I,.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA COALFIELDS & WASHERIES LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

68. Ground No.1 raised in this appeal is identical to ground No.1 of the Revenue‟s appeal being ITA No.477/NAG/2014. Since we have dismissed the ground No.1 of the Revenue‟s appeal and answered the issue in favour of the assessee, ground No.1 raised in this appeal is also dismissed. 69. Ground No.2, 3 and 4 raised in this appeal