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

section 153A of the Act in absence of incriminating\ndocument found as a result of search.\n57. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee did\nnot wish to press this ground to which the learned Departmental\nRepresentative has not raised any objection. Accordingly, ground no.2, stands\ndismissed as \"not pressed”.\n58. Ground no.3, relates

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

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

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. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Nagpur erred in not appreciating the larger vicious cycle wherein larger network created to provide accommodation entries. 3. Any other ground which may be raised during the course of hearing.‖ 2 M/s. N. Kumar Construction

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

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 or u/s 69A has been satisfactorily discharged. No enquiry made by A.O. before making addition. Reliance on : i) (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom) Orient Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (P- 154 – 163) (54) ii) (2014) 366 ITR 232 (P&H) CIT vs. Varinder Rawlley (P- 164 – 168) (167, 168) iii) (1986) 159 ITR 0078 (SC) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation

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

M/S SMS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,NAGPUR vs. D.C.I.T. CENTRALCIRCLE 2(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

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

section 154 of the Act as under:- “6. In response to show cause notice u/s 154, issued by the A.O., the assessee argued before the A.O. as under:- “In this case a search u/s. 132 of I. T. Act took place at business premises of the assessee on 28.11.2006 and 07.09.2007. During the course of search various books

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

68, only on the basis of statement of one Suresh Agrawal, Kolkata, director of M/s.Rashi Steel & Poweer P. Ltd, Kolkata, under section 132(4) was recorded on 14/03/2019, as alleged by the Assessing Officer, in their separate search proceedings under section 132 on 22/01/2019 on M/s.RKTC Group, Korba and Suresh Agrawal, Kolkata. 15. The A.R. for the assessee

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

68, only on the basis of statement of one Suresh Agrawal, Kolkata, director of M/s.Rashi Steel & Poweer P. Ltd, Kolkata, under section 132(4) was recorded on 14/03/2019, as alleged by the Assessing Officer, in their separate search proceedings under section 132 on 22/01/2019 on M/s.RKTC Group, Korba and Suresh Agrawal, Kolkata. 15. The A.R. for the assessee

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

68, only on the basis of statement of one Suresh Agrawal, Kolkata, director of M/s.Rashi Steel & Poweer P. Ltd, Kolkata, under section 132(4) was recorded on 14/03/2019, as alleged by the Assessing Officer, in their separate search proceedings under section 132 on 22/01/2019 on M/s.RKTC Group, Korba and Suresh Agrawal, Kolkata. 15. The A.R. for the assessee

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

68, only on the basis of statement of one Suresh Agrawal, Kolkata, director of M/s.Rashi Steel & Poweer P. Ltd, Kolkata, under section 132(4) was recorded on 14/03/2019, as alleged by the Assessing Officer, in their separate search proceedings under section 132 on 22/01/2019 on M/s.RKTC Group, Korba and Suresh Agrawal, Kolkata. 15. The A.R. for the assessee

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

68, only on the basis of statement of one Suresh Agrawal, Kolkata, director of M/s.Rashi Steel & Poweer P. Ltd, Kolkata, under section 132(4) was recorded on 14/03/2019, as alleged by the Assessing Officer, in their separate search proceedings under section 132 on 22/01/2019 on M/s.RKTC Group, Korba and Suresh Agrawal, Kolkata. 15. The A.R. for the assessee

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

68, only on the basis of statement of one Suresh Agrawal, Kolkata, director of M/s.Rashi Steel & Poweer P. Ltd, Kolkata, under section 132(4) was recorded on 14/03/2019, as alleged by the Assessing Officer, in their separate search proceedings under section 132 on 22/01/2019 on M/s.RKTC Group, Korba and Suresh Agrawal, Kolkata. 15. The A.R. for the assessee

DAYAL COTSPIN LIMITED,AKOLA vs. ACIT, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

154 of the Act. 4. In grounds no.1 to 4, the assessee has challenged the validity of notice issued under section 148 of the Act. 5. Notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 29/03/2017, after recording reasons for escapement of income. The reasons recorded for issuance of notice, as provided to the assessee are reproduced

RAVINDRA KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE AKOLA , 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 36)\(1)(iii) of the Act. 10. The Assessing Officer disallowed a part of the interest considering it as interest on capital not borrowed for the purpose of business on proportionate basis. The assessee had debited ` 34,15,880, on account of interest on unsecured loans of ` 1,81,14,226. The Assessing Officer considered