DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

47,236/- from Co-operative banks (Rs.71,33,540/-) and from Co- operative societies (Rs.20,13,696/-). It is for the appellant to explain the difference between the two RBI has published the List of the following categories of co-operative banks, which is available in the website: INCOME ETAX DEPARTMENT 1. Scheduled Urban Co-operative Banks 2. Non-Scheduled

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

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

68,82,917 constituted excess claim, which was disallowed. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Com- missioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who agreed with the Assessing Officer and, accordingly, took the view that once the management in its books spread over the amount of Rs. 10,02,23,735 over a period of 60 months then

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

68,82,917 constituted excess claim, which was disallowed. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Com- missioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who agreed with the Assessing Officer and, accordingly, took the view that once the management in its books spread over the amount of Rs. 10,02,23,735 over a period of 60 months then

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 (TR 252: AIR 1968 SC 623, the Supreme Court of India observed that the rule that (page 257): "we must look to the general scope and purview of the statute, and at the remedy sought to be applied, and consider what was the former state of the law, and what it was that the Legislature contemplated' was Vidarbha Konkan

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 (TR 252: AIR 1968 SC 623, the Supreme Court of India observed that the rule that (page 257): "we must look to the general scope and purview of the statute, and at the remedy sought to be applied, and consider what was the former state of the law, and what it was that the Legislature contemplated' was Vidarbha Konkan

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

2. CIT V/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (ITS No.972 of 2009) 6.3 In the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Dwarakadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. are held as under: "In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Thought in section 68 of the Income

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

2. CIT V/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (ITS No.972 of 2009) 6.3 In the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Dwarakadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. are held as under: "In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Thought in section 68 of the Income

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

2. CIT V/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (ITS No.972 of 2009) 6.3 In the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Dwarakadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. are held as under: "In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Thought in section 68 of the Income

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

2. CIT V/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (ITS No.972 of 2009) 6.3 In the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Dwarakadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. are held as under: "In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Thought in section 68 of the Income

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

2. CIT V/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (ITS No.972 of 2009) 6.3 In the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Dwarakadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. are held as under: "In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Thought in section 68 of the Income

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

2. CIT V/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (ITS No.972 of 2009) 6.3 In the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Dwarakadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. are held as under: "In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Thought in section 68 of the Income

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

V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.375/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year : 2018–19) Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal C/o M/s. Khandelwal Jewellers ……………. Appellant Gandhi Road, Akola 444 001 PAN – AMFPK2167B v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Akola Circle, Akola Assessee by : Shri Mahavir Atal Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 24/10/2024 Date of Order

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

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

47. The assessee has raised following grounds:- "(1) That the order of the learned Dy./Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A is bad in law and wrong on facts and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. (2) That the learned CIT(A) erred

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

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

section 68 is clear. The Legislature has laid down that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. In this, case the legislative mandate is not in terms of the words "shall be charged to income-tax as the income

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

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

section 68 is clear. The Legislature has laid down that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. In this, case the legislative mandate is not in terms of the words "shall be charged to income-tax as the income

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

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

section 68 is clear. The Legislature has laid down that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. In this, case the legislative mandate is not in terms of the words "shall be charged to income-tax as the income

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

v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272/247 Taxman 245/394 ITR 680 (Bom.) has while refusing to entertain a question with regard to section 68 of the Act has held that the proviso to section 68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from

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

v. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 272/247 Taxman 245/394 ITR 680 (Bom.) has while refusing to entertain a question with regard to section 68 of the Act has held that the proviso to section 68 of the Act introduced with effect from April 1, 2013 will not have retrospective effect and would be effective only from