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

7 M/s. Vibrant Global Capital Ltd. ITA no.229/Nag./2022 before us. The written submission, as submitted by the assessee in respect to grounds no.1 and 2, is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:– “Ground No.1 & 2 : Addition of ` 8.50 crore under section 68

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 68 stands approved the Ld. AO cannot then add the said amount u/s 56(2)(v) as there cannot be two provisions enabling addition in respect of the said transaction. 6. In the said case, the Assessing Officer from the perusal of the balance sheet for the year ended on 31-3-2005, noted that the assessee

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

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 to the fact that both the lower authorities have accepted that the impugned subsidy received by the Appellant for setting up of unit in the specified backward area under the Package

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

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 to the fact that both the lower authorities have accepted that the impugned subsidy received by the Appellant for setting up of unit in the specified backward area under the Package

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

7. As per provision of section 68, addition of amount is to be made if any credit in the books of account of the assessee, remains un- explained. In instant case addition is made on the basis of entries in bank passbook. It is brought to your kind notice that Bank statement is not books of account

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

2. Following grounds have been raised by the Revenue:– “a. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition by stating that there is no specific incriminating document linking investor to the appellant. However, in statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain on such company M/s. Viraj Mercantile

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

2)(d) of the Act pertaining to this interest income i.e., ` 79,65,841, which was added back to the total income of the assessee–society. The assessee being aggrieved, carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. 13. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal and the observations of the learned CIT(A) are reproduced

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

2)(d) of the Act pertaining to this interest income i.e., ` 79,65,841, which was added back to the total income of the assessee–society. The assessee being aggrieved, carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. 13. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal and the observations of the learned CIT(A) are reproduced

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

7. Sub-section (4) of section 80P of the Act. 1961 (incorporated by Finance Act. 2006 w.e.f. 1-4-2007 provides as under. Para 1.644 (4) The provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any cooperative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank: Explanation

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

7. Sub-section (4) of section 80P of the Act. 1961 (incorporated by Finance Act. 2006 w.e.f. 1-4-2007 provides as under. Para 1.644 (4) The provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any cooperative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank: Explanation

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

68 of the Act. i. The said additions were confirmed by the CIT (Appeals). The Ld. AR during the course of hearing strongly opposed the actions of the AO and challenged the reopening of the assessment under section 147 as bad in law and further challenged the additions made on merits as well. 2. The Ld. DR relied

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

7,595, and the addition to that extent is confirmed. Thus, ground no.4, raised by the assessee is partly allowed. The issue raised by the assessee in grounds no.5 and 6, relates to the addition of ₹ 15 lakh on account of unsecured loan under section 68. The brief facts, as brought out by the Assessing Officer in the assessment

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. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,38,21,488/- made by the AO as there had been no rejection of books of account u/s 145 failing to appreciate that by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.10.2014 the amendment in section

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. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,38,21,488/- made by the AO as there had been no rejection of books of account u/s 145 failing to appreciate that by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.10.2014 the amendment in section

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. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,38,21,488/- made by the AO as there had been no rejection of books of account u/s 145 failing to appreciate that by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.10.2014 the amendment in section

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. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,38,21,488/- made by the AO as there had been no rejection of books of account u/s 145 failing to appreciate that by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.10.2014 the amendment in section

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. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,38,21,488/- made by the AO as there had been no rejection of books of account u/s 145 failing to appreciate that by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.10.2014 the amendment in section

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. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,38,21,488/- made by the AO as there had been no rejection of books of account u/s 145 failing to appreciate that by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.10.2014 the amendment in section