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

68 – Rs.1.65 CIT(A) Dt.23.4.2021 applicabl Crores Unsecured Order e Regular loan from Anubhav 6.9.2021 Assessme Vinimay Ltd. nt ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 DETERMINATION OF STATUS OF ASSESSMENT RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPERS Particulars AY 2011-12 AY 2012-23 AY 2013-14 Return filed

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

68 – Rs.1.65 CIT(A) Dt.23.4.2021 applicabl Crores Unsecured Order e Regular loan from Anubhav 6.9.2021 Assessme Vinimay Ltd. nt ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 DETERMINATION OF STATUS OF ASSESSMENT RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPERS Particulars AY 2011-12 AY 2012-23 AY 2013-14 Return filed

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

68 – Rs.1.65 CIT(A) Dt.23.4.2021 applicabl Crores Unsecured Order e Regular loan from Anubhav 6.9.2021 Assessme Vinimay Ltd. nt ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 DETERMINATION OF STATUS OF ASSESSMENT RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPERS Particulars AY 2011-12 AY 2012-23 AY 2013-14 Return filed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),NAGPUR, 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

68 – Rs.1.65 CIT(A) Dt.23.4.2021 applicabl Crores Unsecured Order e Regular loan from Anubhav 6.9.2021 Assessme Vinimay Ltd. nt ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 DETERMINATION OF STATUS OF ASSESSMENT RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPERS Particulars AY 2011-12 AY 2012-23 AY 2013-14 Return filed

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

68 – Rs.1.65 CIT(A) Dt.23.4.2021 applicabl Crores Unsecured Order e Regular loan from Anubhav 6.9.2021 Assessme Vinimay Ltd. nt ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 DETERMINATION OF STATUS OF ASSESSMENT RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPERS Particulars AY 2011-12 AY 2012-23 AY 2013-14 Return filed

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

155 To 161 of the Paper Book and Modification agreement alongwith the submission which is on Page-98 To 100 & 162 To 164 of the Paper Book. In view of the above there is no question of share application money as well as involving of Section 68

TAJSHREE AUTOWHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 68 are in the nature of anti-abuse measures aimed at preventing the malafide transactions intended to avoid tax liability and to tackle the problem of black money and were never intended to be made applicable on genuine, bonafide and purely commercial transactions. In the case of the assessee also the shares are issued to raise 9 Tajshree

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

68 based on statement of Shri Satish Shah. Addition made is deleted in appellate proceedings. Reliance on: i) ITA No.288/Jodh/2018 in the case of M/s. Esspal International Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 03/01/2024. (P- 213 – 242) (231 to 235) [Vol. – II] ii) Appeal of revenue dismissed by Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court in ITA No.25/2024 in the case

RAJESH SARDA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Rajesh Sarda, Acit, Central Circle – 2(2), Nagpur 14, Daga Lay–Out, Ambazari Road, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440033. Maharashtra – 440001. [Pan: Ahaps4925M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

155 taxmann.com 549 (Gujarat) also held that where the assessee had sold the shares and earned LTCG and the Assessing Officer alleged that transaction was penny stock deal aim at illegitimately claiming LTCG exemption under section 10(38), since there was no allegation on record suggesting the assessee or his broker involved in rigging up the price of scrips

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(2), NAGPUR vs. AJAY VISHANDAS KAMNANI, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

155 6,372,490 3.39 2018–19 221,608,352 241,335,770 3,876,403 1.61 2017–18 299,

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

155(15). In the order passed consequent upon order u/s 263 claim of exemption u/s 54EC and cost of improvement has been accepted. Thus the aforesaid issues cannot be said to have been not been verified at the time of framing of regular assessment. Order cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue

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

68 of the Act and Rs. 3,99,600/- on account of interest expenditure against the loans. I have perused ground-wise submission made by the AR of the appellant and the assessment order passed by the AO before deciding this appeal. I find no merit in the submission of the appellant. Hence, I confirm the assessment order passed

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

68 of the Act and Rs. 3,99,600/- on account of interest expenditure against the loans. I have perused ground-wise submission made by the AR of the appellant and the assessment order passed by the AO before deciding this appeal. I find no merit in the submission of the appellant. Hence, I confirm the assessment order passed

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

68 of the Act and Rs. 3,99,600/- on account of interest expenditure against the loans. I have perused ground-wise submission made by the AR of the appellant and the assessment order passed by the AO before deciding this appeal. I find no merit in the submission of the appellant. Hence, I confirm the assessment order passed

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

68 of the Act and Rs. 3,99,600/- on account of interest expenditure against the loans. I have perused ground-wise submission made by the AR of the appellant and the assessment order passed by the AO before deciding this appeal. I find no merit in the submission of the appellant. Hence, I confirm the assessment order passed

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

68 of the Act and Rs. 3,99,600/- on account of interest expenditure against the loans. I have perused ground-wise submission made by the AR of the appellant and the assessment order passed by the AO before deciding this appeal. I find no merit in the submission of the appellant. Hence, I confirm the assessment order passed

M/S SPACEWOOD FURNISHERS PVT. LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. D.C.I.T. CENTRALCIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dcit T-48, Midc, Hinga, Central Circle 1(3) Nagpur Nagpur Pan No.: Aaccs 4955 R Appellant Respondent

section (2) of sec.153-A till the date of receipt of the order setting aside of such annulment, by the Commissioner.” 10. The proceedings u/s.132(1) were annulled by the High Court on 09.12.2011 and the said annulment was set aside by Hon‟ble Supreme Court on 13.05.2015. Thus the time between 09.12.2011 and 13.05.2015 is 3 years and 155

MRS. BEANT KAUR JUNEJA,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), NAGPUR

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 018/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Beantkaur Avtarsingh Juneja Hp Petrol Pump, Dosar Bhavan, C. A. Road, Nagpur-440002. Pan: Aflpj2956E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

68,859/. 2.3 Aggrieved assessee carried the matter in appeal before first appellate authority u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. While dealing with assessee’s appeal the Ld. NFAC provided as much as six opportunities from January, 2021 to March, 2022, however, the assessee failed to effectively establish the reasonable cause beyond delayed filing of TAR to the satisfaction