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

E) v/s Audyogik– shikshan Mandal [2019] 101 taxmann.com 247 (Bom.) has upheld the interpretation that the legislature did not contemplate the denial of the benefit of section 11 of the Act to the entire income of the trust/charitable institution. If the interpretation sought by the Revenue is accepted, it would lead to grave injustice as any mistake minor

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

E) v/s Audyogik– shikshan Mandal [2019] 101 taxmann.com 247 (Bom.) has upheld the interpretation that the legislature did not contemplate the denial of the benefit of section 11 of the Act to the entire income of the trust/charitable institution. If the interpretation sought by the Revenue is accepted, it would lead to grave injustice as any mistake minor

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

3) r/w section 263 of the Act on 29/12/2017, making an addition of ` 1,58,50,000, representing share capital received by the assessee during the year from various companies mentioned hereunder holding the same to be not genuine and consequently making the addition under section 68 of the Act. The assessee had during the year received share

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

E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 31/05/2022, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2014–15. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the Revenue:– “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

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 consolidated order. However

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, 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

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

13, 2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–16\nand 2017-18, respectively.\nSince all the above-mentioned appeals pertains to the same assessee\ninvolving common issues arising out of identical facts and circumstances,\nexcept variation in figures, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these\nappeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this\nconsolidated order. However

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

e. This statement as informed has however been retracted by filing affidavit on 15.05.2014. f. The Appellant filed its return in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act declaring the same income as declared in the original return of income. g. It was submitted that the Appellant during the course of reassessment proceedings firstly objected

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

13 Umesh Sadashiv Thakre Α.Υ. 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 Scanned copy of approval so granted by the Department under section 153D in respect of Shri Umesh Sadashiv Thakre, for the A.Y. 2016–17 OVERNMENT OF INDIA ITA 239/2022 OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL -2, NAGPUR Aayakar Bhavan, R.No

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

13. Thus, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the judicial pronouncements cited supra on the present issue, we admit the additional grounds no.1 and 2, as mentioned above, through which the assessee is challenging the validity of approval so granted by the Department under section 153D of the Act, claiming the same to have been passed without \"application

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is made against the order passed by the CIT(A)-1, Nagpur, dated 24.05.2018, for the assessment year 2010-2011 on the following grounds of appeal :- 1. The cash deposited in both joint account amounting Rs.43,50,000/- is treated as income from other source & taxed

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

e) Though, there is separate approval for each year is granted, but it is stereo-typed approval in same manner, in same fashion, in mechanical manner, merely on formality for all the 5 years i.e., A.Y. 2009-10 to 2013-14 separately, he has not even recorded any single word of his own satisfaction in the approval order passed under

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

13, 2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–16\nand 2017-18, respectively.\n2. Since all the above-mentioned appeals pertains to the same assessee\ninvolving common issues arising out of identical facts and circumstances,\nexcept variation in figures, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these\nappeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this\nconsolidated order. However

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

13, 2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–16\nand 2017-18, respectively.\n\n2. Since all the above-mentioned appeals pertains to the same assessee\ninvolving common issues arising out of identical facts and circumstances,\nexcept variation in figures, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these\nappeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this\nconsolidated order

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

13, 2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–16 and 2017-18, respectively.\n\n2. 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 consolidated order

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

13, 2013–14, 2014–15, 2015–16\nand 2017-18, respectively.\n2. Since all the above-mentioned appeals pertains to the same assessee\ninvolving common issues arising out of identical facts and circumstances,\nexcept variation in figures, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these\nappeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this\nconsolidated order. However

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

13. Similarly, addition of ` 3,99,600, on account of interest on unsecured loan treating it as bogus, when, on the date of search i.e., 11/07/2019, for the assessment year 2014-15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) had been completed on 18/08/2016 (prior to the date of search) and no assessment

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

13. Similarly, addition of ` 3,99,600, on account of interest on unsecured loan treating it as bogus, when, on the date of search i.e., 11/07/2019, for the assessment year 2014-15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) had been completed on 18/08/2016 (prior to the date of search) and no assessment

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

13. Similarly, addition of ` 3,99,600, on account of interest on unsecured loan treating it as bogus, when, on the date of search i.e., 11/07/2019, for the assessment year 2014-15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) had been completed on 18/08/2016 (prior to the date of search) and no assessment