DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCEL-1(2, NAGPUR vs. M/S. VIBRANT GLOBAL CAPITAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

2. Relevant Period Bank Statement 125 – 126 3. Form 3CA Acknowledgment 127 4. Computation of Income 128 – 130 5. Annual Report 131 – 155 5. Tax Audited Report 156 – 172 12 M/s. Vibrant Global Capital Ltd. ITA no.229/Nag./2022 9. It is seen from the record that the learned CIT(A) has considered the entire remand report and appreciated the observation

I.T.O. WARD -3(5), NAGPUR vs. SHRI MUKUNDRAO GOVINDRAO MANKAR, KATOL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 56(2)(vii)(a) in view of the following:- a) No property was mortgaged towards security of the loan. b) No security was provided against the loan. c) No proper legal document was created for obtaining loan. d) No legal binding agreement was executed. 5.1 Thus it is seen that it is the contention

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

68,23,460, which comprised of contingent liability to the tune of ` 54,95,265, additional impact of ICDS to the tune of ` 3,43,462 and lesser deduction under section 80P of the Act to the tune of ` 9,84,733. The learned A.R. for the assessee pleaded that this ground was taken by the assesse before

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

68,23,460, which comprised of contingent liability to the tune of ` 54,95,265, additional impact of ICDS to the tune of ` 3,43,462 and lesser deduction under section 80P of the Act to the tune of ` 9,84,733. The learned A.R. for the assessee pleaded that this ground was taken by the assesse before

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

5 to 5.8. given at page no. 8 to 13 of the assessment order. Similarly, the CIT(A)-3 vide second last line of the paragraph 4.1.2. given at page no. 7 of the order held that the impugned subsidy received by the Appellant is capital in nature. Thus, it can be seen that there is not dispute with respect

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

5 to 5.8. given at page no. 8 to 13 of the assessment order. Similarly, the CIT(A)-3 vide second last line of the paragraph 4.1.2. given at page no. 7 of the order held that the impugned subsidy received by the Appellant is capital in nature. Thus, it can be seen that there is not dispute with respect

RAMKRUSHNA ZILBAJI THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WRAD -4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the IT Act. Thus, respectfully following the above legal preposition, we are of the considered view that the addition made by Ld AO u/s 68 of the Act is liable to be deleted and order of Ld CIT(A) is set aside. Since, the addition u/s 68 is deleted on the legal ground; no further adjudication

ITO, WARD- 1)1), NAGPUR vs. AXYKNO ENTERPRISES 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 which was rightly deleted by the learned CIT(A). Consequently, we decline to interfere with the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. 15. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/09/2024

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

section 68 have been invoked only on the basis of non-furnishing of tax returns and bank statement of lenders. 2 Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal ITA no.375/Nag./2024 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned First Appellate Authority was justified in endorsing disallowing of interest income of Rs.74,32,292/-. 3. Whether on the facts

AXYKNO CAPITAL SERVICES LTD,,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, NAGPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.50 lacs made by the AO u/s 68 of I.T. Act. The addition of Rs.50 lacs u/s 68 of the Act is unjustified, arbitrary and deserves to be deleted. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

68 taxmann.com 298/239 Taxman 417/384 ITR 490 (Ker.), which relied on the aforesaid provision to decline exemption insofar as a similar situation in which no return was filed. In such circumstance, the failure to file a return under Section 139; even when a notice was issued under Section 142(1), is not a technical defect. We also

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

68 taxmann.com 298/239 Taxman 417/384 ITR 490 (Ker.), which relied on the aforesaid provision to decline exemption insofar as a similar situation in which no return was filed. In such circumstance, the failure to file a return under Section 139; even when a notice was issued under Section 142(1), is not a technical defect. We also

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

68 taxmann.com 298/239 Taxman 417/384 ITR 490 (Ker.), which relied on the aforesaid provision to decline exemption insofar as a similar situation in which no return was filed. In such circumstance, the failure to file a return under Section 139; even when a notice was issued under Section 142(1), is not a technical defect. We also

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. Section 68 – Rs. 6 crores total – Unsecured loans from (i) Anubhav Vinimay – Rs.2,00,00,000/- (ii) Blue View Trade Comm.Pvt Ltd. Rs.3 Crores (iii) Raj Laxmi Decision Pvt.Ltd – Rs.1 crore 5

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. Section 68 – Rs. 6 crores total – Unsecured loans from (i) Anubhav Vinimay – Rs.2,00,00,000/- (ii) Blue View Trade Comm.Pvt Ltd. Rs.3 Crores (iii) Raj Laxmi Decision Pvt.Ltd – Rs.1 crore 5

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. Section 68 – Rs. 6 crores total – Unsecured loans from (i) Anubhav Vinimay – Rs.2,00,00,000/- (ii) Blue View Trade Comm.Pvt Ltd. Rs.3 Crores (iii) Raj Laxmi Decision Pvt.Ltd – Rs.1 crore 5

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. Section 68 – Rs. 6 crores total – Unsecured loans from (i) Anubhav Vinimay – Rs.2,00,00,000/- (ii) Blue View Trade Comm.Pvt Ltd. Rs.3 Crores (iii) Raj Laxmi Decision Pvt.Ltd – Rs.1 crore 5

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. Section 68 – Rs. 6 crores total – Unsecured loans from (i) Anubhav Vinimay – Rs.2,00,00,000/- (ii) Blue View Trade Comm.Pvt Ltd. Rs.3 Crores (iii) Raj Laxmi Decision Pvt.Ltd – Rs.1 crore 5