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

Section 68, initial onus was upon assessee to establish identity, genuineness of transaction and capacity of lender or depositor-Confirmation of transaction had been received by AO by issuing notice U/s. 133(6), therefore, identity had been established- Genuineness of transaction could be safely concluded since entire transaction had been done through banking channel duly recorded in books

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. VISHNU GILTS PVT.LT, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act and the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness were never doubted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has alleged that there was no justification for charging huge premium and treated the same as business income of the assessee company. The learned Counsel further submitted that the investment decision was taken by the investors based

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. M/S NIHAL GITS PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act and the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness were never doubted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has alleged that there was no justification for charging huge premium and treated the same as business income of the assessee company. The learned Counsel further submitted that the investment decision was taken by the investors based

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, NAGPUR vs. M/S RAGHAV FINVEST PVT LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act and the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness were never doubted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has alleged that there was no justification for charging huge premium and treated the same as business income of the assessee company. The learned Counsel further submitted that the investment decision was taken by the investors based

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

Section 68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of Stock Exchange. The ITAT therefore

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

Section 68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of Stock Exchange. The ITAT therefore

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

Section 68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of Stock Exchange. The ITAT therefore

SUFALAM INFRA PROJECTS LTD ,NAGPUR vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL ), NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

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

68 has to be understood as a requirement of identification of source and its genuineness. It is also a settled legal position that the onus of the assessee, of explaining nature and source of credit, does not get discharged merely by filing confirmatory letters, or demonstrating that the transactions are done through the banking channels or even by filing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. SUFLAM INFRA PROJECT LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

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

68 has to be understood as a requirement of identification of source and its genuineness. It is also a settled legal position that the onus of the assessee, of explaining nature and source of credit, does not get discharged merely by filing confirmatory letters, or demonstrating that the transactions are done through the banking channels or even by filing

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") and taxed under section 158BBE of the Act vide Para–8 of the order is extracted below Para–11 of this order. viii) As per notice dated 14/06/2021 under section 143(2) r/w section 147 of the Act (Paper Book Page–37–40) the reasons

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. VIDHARBHA BAHUUDESHIYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2017-18

section 153C intended to carve out a distinct procedure for such cases to avoid overlap and jurisdictional conflict. 13. Referring to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Parshwa Investment vs. DCIT vide ITA No.1429/MUM/2025 for assessment year 2018-19, he submitted that in this case also the reopening was made

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

192,577 2,610,609 0.82 2016–17 244,759,142 246,745,822 2,093,066 0.85 2015–16 207,385,901 226,603,279 1,906,424 0.84 2014–15 102,789,084 76,963,140 1,468,314 1.91 9. The Ld. A.O. ought to have considered the factual dictum of the case, nature of the assessee

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

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

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

192/- and treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction u/s.24 by the assessee. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of capital gain of Rs.17.33.880/- on sale of shares claimed

A,C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.- 2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI DHARAMPAL R.AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

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

192/- and treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction u/s.24 by the assessee. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of capital gain of Rs.17.33.880/- on sale of shares claimed

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

192/- and\ntreating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction u/s.24\nby the assessee.\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nCIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on\naccount of disallowance of capital gain of Rs.17.33.880/- on sale of shares\nclaimed

A,C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.- 2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI DHARAMPAL R.AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

192/- and\ntreating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction u/s.24\nby the assessee.\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nCIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on\naccount of disallowance of capital gain of Rs.17.33.880/- on sale of shares\nclaimed

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

192/- and\ntreating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction u/s.24\nby the assessee.\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nCIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on\naccount of disallowance of capital gain of Rs.17.33.880/- on sale of shares\nclaimed