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

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\noffered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer,\nsatisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the\nincome

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

68 of the Act at ₹ 15\nlakh is hereby directed to be deleted. Thus, the grounds no.5 and 6 raised by\nthe assessee are allowed.\n37. In ground no.7, the assessee has challenged the charging of interest\nunder section 234A and 234B of the Act on the basis that interest charged is\nimproper. However, nothing was specifically contended 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 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

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

68 – 78) (76, 77) iii) (2003) 259 ITR 0019 (SC) GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. ( 79 – 81) (81) F) W/s before CIT(A) (P- 1 to 9). In appellate order CIT(A) has not considered/given one single reason as to why submission of assessee are not being accepted. Dismissing of appeal is arbitrary. Ground No.3: Assessment framed

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

I.T.O. WARD -1, AMRAVATI vs. SHRI SANJAY NANASAHEB BHARSAKALE, AMRAVATI

In the result, the appeal of the department is rejected

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

Section 68 of the I.T. Act 1961 on account of unexplained cash credits. The addition of Rs.2,05,00,000/- is accordingly deleted and the appeal on these grounds is allowed”. ITO Ward-1 Amravati vs. Sanjay Nanasaheb Bharsakale ITA no.81/Nag./18 Accordingly, CIT (Appeals) has granted full relief to the appellant by directing deletion of the same

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 will not be applicable, yet cash deposit in bank should be explained by assessee u/s 69/69B - unless any clinching evidence, shows nature and source of money deposited in the bank account, same should be added as his unexplained income - yes 5. Praveen Garg vs. ITO 132 taxmann.com 142 (Delhi-ITAT) (2021) - Appellant failed to explain the source

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

68,07,020/- made by the AO is found to be correct and the contention of the appellant in this context is rejected. Ground no. 3 is confirmed. 9.0 In the 4th Ground of appeal, the AO has observed that the appellant has claimed the deduction of Rs.2,77,22,160/- on account of recovery in respect of bad debts

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

68,07,020/- made by the AO is found to be correct and the contention of the appellant in this context is rejected. Ground no. 3 is confirmed. 9.0 In the 4th Ground of appeal, the AO has observed that the appellant has claimed the deduction of Rs.2,77,22,160/- on account of recovery in respect of bad debts

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

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

68 taxmann.com 298/239 Taxman 417/384 ITR 490 (Ker.), which\nrelied on the aforesaid provision to decline exemption insofar as a similar\nsituation in which no return was filed. In such circumstance, the failure to file\na return under Section 139; even when a notice was issued under Section\n142(1), is not a technical defect. We also

MANISHA ASHUTOSH SHEWALKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

68 per cent. Gold Bonds, 1977, or 7 per cent. Gold Bonds, 1980, or National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980, issued by the Central Government: (v) Special Bearer Bonds, 1991, issued by the Central Government: (vi) Gold Deposit Bonds issued under the Gold Deposit Scheme, 1999 notified by the Central Government 16. Once the Tribunal has accepted that the classification

VINAY RAMSHARANDAS AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

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

section 263 of the Act, set aside the assessment order dated 18/12/2019, passed by the ACIT, Circle–3, Nagpur, with direction to pass a fresh assessment order after conducting necessary inquiries, as the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous inasmuch as it is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. The conclusion of the learned PCIT