ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

195 ITR 877), while dealing with the question as to whether the allowance received by the assessee under the Huzur order dated April 8, 1947 which was ratified subsequently post-merger of the territories vide Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955 held that the capital receipt is not income within the meaning of section

THE DY. C.I.T., CENTRAL CIR. 2(1),, NAGPUR vs. M/S MAHAVIR COAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

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

1 – 2) [Vol.- II]; ii) (2008) 307 ITR 0334 (Delhi) CIT vs. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. (P- 3 – 5) (4) [Vol.- II]; iii) Hon‟ble Bombay High Court order in ITA (L) No.2182 of 2009 in the case of M/s. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (Earlier known as Link International Services Pvt. Ltd.) vide order dated 12/10/2009

THE DY. C.I.T., CENTRAL CIR. 2(1),, NAGPUR vs. M/S MAHAVIR COAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

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

1 – 2) [Vol.- II] ii) (2008) 307 ITR 0334 (Delhi) CIT vs. Value Capital Services (P) Ltd. (P- 3 – 5) (4) [Vol.- II] iii) Hon‟ble Bombay High Court order in ITA (L) No.2182 of 2009 in the case of M/s. Creative World Telefilms Ltd. (Earlier known as Link International Services Pvt. Ltd.) vide order dated 12/10/2009

NIKITA SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ms. Nikita Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Borpt 4644 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /62022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

195 (Delhi); f. CIT Vs P. Mohanakala, [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 20 (SC); 13 Nikita Shankarlal Tanwani vs ACIT, CentralCircle 2(1), Nagpur g. CIT Vs G.S. Tiwari& Co., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (MAG)/ [2013] 357 ITR 651; The Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted

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 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 neither suffers from any perversity nor gives rise to any substantial question of law.‖ The above case laws have been referred only for the proposition that if the shareholders are found to be not having adequate means, the addition can be made in the hands of the shareholders only

HARSHA SANTOSH TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Harsha Santosh Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar,Pandhuna, Pandhurna, Nagpur Chhindwara 480334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Bobpt 5794 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Aforesaid Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Thoctober 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

195 (Delhi); f. CIT Vs P. Mohanakala, [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 20 (SC); g. CIT Vs G.S. Tiwari& Co., [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 (Allahabad) (MAG)/ [2013] 357 ITR 651; The Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the only 14. contention of department is that

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

1. This appeal is placed by the Department against the consequential order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, dated 31/12/2019, wherein a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- was added u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. However, CIT(A) had directed deletion of the amount. ITA NO.97/NAG/2019 & ITA NO. 46/NAG/2021 & CO NO.6/NAG/2023 Sufalam Infra

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

1. This appeal is placed by the Department against the consequential order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, dated 31/12/2019, wherein a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- was added u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. However, CIT(A) had directed deletion of the amount. ITA NO.97/NAG/2019 & ITA NO. 46/NAG/2021 & CO NO.6/NAG/2023 Sufalam Infra

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all\nthe appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

1,65,07,560, the ACIT\nfailed to notice the error.\n12. This aspect was brought to the fore by the Tribunal in the impugned\norder. The Trib, thus, concluded there was a complete lack of application of\nmind, inasmuch as the ACIT, who granted approval, failed to notice the said\nerror.\n12.1. More particularly, the Tribunal notes that

YRCE EDUCATE PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

68 and 69 of the PB which contains information\nobtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar from Central Public Information Officer who\nis none other than the Id Addl.CIT, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under RTI\nAct, wherein, it reveals that the Id Addl.CIT had granted approval for 43\ncases on 30-12-18 itself. This fact is not in dispute before

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all\nthe appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

1 SCC 248 and SL Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1980)\n4 SCC 379).\n30. As already noted above, the expression \"civil consequences”\nencompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil\nliberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages. Anything which\naffects a citizen in his civil life comes under its wide umbrella. Accordingly,\nwe reject the argument

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all\nthe appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

1,65,07,560, the ACIT\nfailed to notice the error.\n12. This aspect was brought to the fore by the Tribunal in the impugned\norder. The Trib, thus, concluded there was a complete lack of application of\nmind, inasmuch as the ACIT, who granted approval, failed to notice the said\nerror.\n12.1. More particularly, the Tribunal notes that

SHRI ANKIT SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Ankit Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Biapt 4756 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8/6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

68 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 4. On the fact and circumstances learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur ought to have accepted returned income of Rs.17,05,000/- were regular income of the assessee and without going into merits of the case treating the same U/s. 69A as unexplained money and confirming the same taxed as per section

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

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

195, as also in CIT vs Creative World Telefilms Ltd (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom). In such situation there is no justification in making addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 neither suffers from any perversity nor gives rise to any substantial question of law. 12. It is settled law that once the identity

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

195, as also by this Court in CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd., (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom.). In such circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal's finding that there is no justification in the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 neither suffers from any perversity nor gives rise

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

195, as also by this Court in CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd., (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom.). In such circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal's finding that there is no justification in the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 neither suffers from any perversity nor gives rise

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

195, as also by this Court in CIT vs. Creative World Telefilms Ltd., (2011) 333 ITR 100 (Bom.). In such circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal's finding that there is no justification in the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 neither suffers from any perversity nor gives rise