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

13(1)(d) of the Act, as the said provisions are attracted in relation to trustees of the trust. The aforesaid property transaction is with the third party. The fact that M/s. Harmony Homes, have given a property advance is apparent from the balance sheet of the assessee trust, therefore it is also not in violation of any provisions

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

13(1)(d) of the Act, as the said provisions are attracted in relation to trustees of the trust. The aforesaid property transaction is with the third party. The fact that M/s. Harmony Homes, have given a property advance is apparent from the balance sheet of the assessee trust, therefore it is also not in violation of any provisions

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 (TR 252: AIR 1968 SC 623, the Supreme Court of India observed that the rule that (page 257): "we must look to the general scope and purview of the statute, and at the remedy sought to be applied, and consider what was the former state of the law, and what it was that the Legislature contemplated' was Vidarbha Konkan

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 (TR 252: AIR 1968 SC 623, the Supreme Court of India observed that the rule that (page 257): "we must look to the general scope and purview of the statute, and at the remedy sought to be applied, and consider what was the former state of the law, and what it was that the Legislature contemplated' was Vidarbha Konkan

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

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

13. Section 68 of the Act has received considerable attention of the courts. It has been held that it is necessary for an assessee to prove prima facie the transaction which results in a cash credit in his books of account. Such proof would include proof of identity of the creditor, capacity of such creditor to advance the money

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

1 April 2013, to treat share capital and share premium within the ambit of provisions of section 68 of the Act. Prior to insertion of provisions of section 68 of the Act, the question of establishing the source of source in respect of share capital and share premium did not arise. This fact has been supported

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

section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The learned assessing officer has noticed that the appellant has during the year under consideration received unsecured loans of aggregated amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000 as under -- S. No. Name PAN Amount of sales to assessee in F.Y. 2010-11 (in Rs.) 1. Casper Enterprises (Oswal AAACO7955M

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

1: “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, assessment under section 153C dt.31-3-22 for AY12-13 is invalid; as per first proviso to section 153C, date of search shall be the date of receiving the documents/ material by the AO of the assessee; notice under section 153C dt.6-12-21 shall be considered the date

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

1: “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, assessment under section 153C dt.31-3-22 for AY12-13 is invalid; as per first proviso to section 153C, date of search shall be the date of receiving the documents/ material by the AO of the assessee; notice under section 153C dt.6-12-21 shall be considered the date

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

1: “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, assessment under section 153C dt.31-3-22 for AY12-13 is invalid; as per first proviso to section 153C, date of search shall be the date of receiving the documents/ material by the AO of the assessee; notice under section 153C dt.6-12-21 shall be considered the date

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

1: “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, assessment under section 153C dt.31-3-22 for AY12-13 is invalid; as per first proviso to section 153C, date of search shall be the date of receiving the documents/ material by the AO of the assessee; notice under section 153C dt.6-12-21 shall be considered the date

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

1: “On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, assessment under section 153C dt.31-3-22 for AY12-13 is invalid; as per first proviso to section 153C, date of search shall be the date of receiving the documents/ material by the AO of the assessee; notice under section 153C dt.6-12-21 shall be considered the date

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

13 Vishal Kishorilal Jain ITA no.108–109/Nag./2025 A.Y. 2016–17 & 2017–18 (ii) in an assessment or reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year." 153C. Assessment of income of any other person. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

13, two case laws and observed that the assessee is required to explain source of source and that the proviso introduced in Section 68 is applicable retrospectively. The AO failed to realize that proviso is applicable to the company assesses and not to individual assessee and that too in case amount is received on account of issue of shares

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

13 ITA207/NAG/2017 ITO, WARD 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

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

1 April, 1999. Board Circular, which explains the amendment as under: “29. Amendment of section 69C.-29.1 Under the existing provisions, where an expenditure incurred by the taxpayer in respect of which he either offers no explanation regarding expenditure such expenditure or where explanation offered is found unsatisfactory, the expenditure is treated as "income" under section 69C. There

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

1 April, 1999. Board Circular, which explains the amendment as under: “29. Amendment of section 69C.-29.1 Under the existing provisions, where an expenditure incurred by the taxpayer in respect of which he either offers no explanation regarding expenditure such expenditure or where explanation offered is found unsatisfactory, the expenditure is treated as "income" under section 69C. There

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

1 April, 1999. Board Circular, which explains the amendment as under: “29. Amendment of section 69C.-29.1 Under the existing provisions, where an expenditure incurred by the taxpayer in respect of which he either offers no explanation regarding expenditure such expenditure or where explanation offered is found unsatisfactory, the expenditure is treated as "income" under section 69C. There