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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 68 of the Act is unjustified and unsustainable.In this case, Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v/s Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 764 (Gujarat). their Lordships have held as follows:- \"9. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned advocates for the respective parties and the orders impugned in this appeal, what is evident is that the amount

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 cannot be invoked. We find the Ld. AR for the assessee filed following summary of impugned deposits and refunds; Repay– Sr. Details of Details of trade advance Details of trade advance ment no. payers received repaid within Date of Amount Date of Name Amount repaid Receipt Received Payment M/s. Anshul 1. 20/08/2015 31,00,000 21/08/2015

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

section 68 of the Act\nis unjustified and unsustainable.In this case, Principal Commissioner of\nIncome-tax v/s Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 764\n(Gujarat). their Lordships have held as follows:-\n\"9. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned advocates\nfor the respective parties and the orders impugned in this appeal, what\nis evident is that

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

section 68 of the Act\nis unjustified and unsustainable.In this case, Principal Commissioner of\nIncome-tax v/s Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 764\n(Gujarat). their Lordships have held as follows:-\n\"9. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned advocates\nfor the respective parties and the orders impugned in this appeal, what\nis evident is that

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 68 of the Act\nis unjustified and unsustainable.In this case, Principal Commissioner of\nIncome-tax v/s Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 764\n(Gujarat). their Lordships have held as follows:-\n\"9. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned advocates\nfor the respective parties and the orders impugned in this appeal, what\nis evident is that

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

section 68 of the Act\nis unjustified and unsustainable.In this case, Principal Commissioner of\nIncome-tax v/s Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 764\n(Gujarat). their Lordships have held as follows:-\n\"9. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned advocates\nfor the respective parties and the orders impugned in this appeal, what\nis evident is that

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

section 68 of the Act\nis unjustified and unsustainable.In this case, Principal Commissioner of\nIncome-tax v/s Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 764\n(Gujarat). their Lordships have held as follows:-\n\"9. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned advocates\nfor the respective parties and the orders impugned in this appeal, what\nis evident is that

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

section 68 on sale of shares. The extract of aforesaid judgement has been reproduced in this order at Para–11. In the judgement at Para–15, the 18 Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has concluded that decision relied upon by the counsel is distinguishable on facts. In view of above factual position, there remains no adversity in respect

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. METROCITY HOMES, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid? 3) Whether the Notice under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is valid herein? As regards Question No.1: Upon reading the material provided and the order of the learned Single Judge delivered on 12.08.2022, it is evident that the income that has escaped assessment and notices under Section

NIKITA SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ms. Nikita Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Borpt 4644 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /62022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

68 of the Act. I have carefully considered the written submissions of the appellant’s AR, the assessment order and the material available on record. The facts of the case are that Locker no.305, in HU Volt, HU Tower Maskasath, Itwari, Nagpur, was in the name of the appellant. Search operation was conducted at this locker on 22.11.2018, and cash

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

section 68 on sale of shares. The extract of aforesaid judgement has been reproduced in this order at Para–11. In the judgement at Para–15, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has concluded that decision relied upon by the counsel is distinguishable on facts. In view of above factual position, there remains no adversity in respect to such

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by not appreciating the correct facts of the case as emerged during the course of Investigation which yielded that the entries obtained were accommodating entries using the vicious cycle using various accounts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Nagpur erred in not appreciating the larger

CHANDRAKUMAR MADHUSUDANJI JAJODIA,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 68 or 69A of I.T. Act 1961. Addition made by A.O. is unjustified. F) Observation of A.O. at para 40 & 41 is factually incorrect. During regular assessment proceedings loan transaction was verified and examined while accepting the same as genuine loan. Observations of A.O. thus are indicative of non-application of mind. G) In submission made before

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 68 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961. Further, the AO did not find the explanation offered by the assessee\nsatisfactory and stated that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus\ntowards explaining the credit of Rs.15,00,000/-. We respectfully object to the\nabove observations and allegations made by the AO as the same are based

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

127 of the Act, after which the assessments were concluded. There is no mention of this important fact of transfer of cases from ACIT-1(1) to ACIT-2(1) in the Affidavits. The officers bluntly misrepresent that the case was discussed on real time basis with the ACIT-2(1) only, when, in fact, the assessee attended and submitted

UMESH SADASHIV THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

127 of the Act, after which the assessments were concluded. There is no mention of this important fact of transfer of cases from ACIT-1(1) to ACIT-2(1) in the Affidavits. The officers bluntly misrepresent that the case was discussed on real time basis with the ACIT-2(1) only, when, in fact, the assessee attended and submitted

UMESH SADASHIV THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

127 of the Act, after which the assessments were concluded. There is no mention of this important fact of transfer of cases from ACIT-1(1) to ACIT-2(1) in the Affidavits. The officers bluntly misrepresent that the case was discussed on real time basis with the ACIT-2(1) only, when, in fact, the assessee attended and submitted

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)

68 to section 69D of the Act" 5. It is submitted that, department is failed to discharge its onus. Hence, AO has applied the provision of 69A in the mechanical manner. 6. There should be specific finding of Ld. AO that assessee is the owner of any money, jewellery, other valuable article for invoking section 69A.. Such