ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. SHRI VINOD BALBHADRA GOENKA,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit Vs. Shri Vinod Balbhadra Goenka Circle-4 247, Nandanvan Layout Nagpur Nagpur Pan No.:Aanpg 6841 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal By Revenue Against Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Nagpur Dated 30/03/2017 In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 4/198/16-17 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue In This Appeal Are As Under:

section 68 are not applicable to the facts of the case. Identical situation is prevailing in the case of the present appellant. The Hon’ble ITAT on the said order of the CIT u/s 263 11 ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR VS SHRI VINOD BALBHADRA GOENKA decided the matter in favour of the assessee by giving following finding which

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

200 shares @ ` 190 each to the total income of the assessee. The assessee being not satisfied with the assessment 4 M/s. Raghav Finvest Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.121/Nag./2020 order of the Assessing Officer, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as follows

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

200 shares @ ` 190 each to the total income of the assessee. The assessee being not satisfied with the assessment 4 M/s. Raghav Finvest Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.121/Nag./2020 order of the Assessing Officer, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as follows

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

200 shares @ ` 190 each to the total income of the assessee. The assessee being not satisfied with the assessment 4 M/s. Raghav Finvest Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.121/Nag./2020 order of the Assessing Officer, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as follows

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: 2018-19 Shri Harsha Santosh Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar,Pandhuna, Nagpur Pandhurna 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 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.

200/-, and treated the same as unexplained money 8 Harisha Santosh Tanwani vs ACIT, C.C-2(1), Nagpur under section 69A of the Act and charged income tax under section 115BBE of the Act. The learned Counsel submitted that though the provisions of section 69A of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case

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.

200, and treated the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and charged income tax under section 115BBE of the Act. The learned Counsel submitted that though the provisions of section 69A of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case, but still the Department has charged income tax under

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: 2019-20 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 /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 Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

200/- and paid advance tax on the aforesaid income before the action taken by the department. Being not satisfied with order so passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the first appellate authority. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the order so passed by the 6. Assessing Officer by observing as under:- “4.1 A.Y. 2019-20 ……….. Grounds

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

Section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961”. The assessee strongly objects to the said allegation made in the report. As the list of paper companies, list of dummy directors and even the statements of persons involved in providing accommodation entries provided, nowhere the name of assesse or company “Parag Shilpa Infrastructure Ltd.” features in the list. The assessee

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

Section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961”.\nThe assessee strongly objects to the said allegation made in the report. As the list of paper companies, list of dummy directors and even the statements of persons involved in providing accommodation entries provided, no where the name of assesse or company “Parag Shilpa Infrastructure Ltd.” features in the list.\nThe

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

200, as disallowance under the provisions for bad and doubtful debt under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, ` 17,39,54,837, as addition on account of interest accrued but not due on Government and other securities, ` 2,68

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

200, as disallowance under the provisions for bad and doubtful debt under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, ` 17,39,54,837, as addition on account of interest accrued but not due on Government and other securities, ` 2,68

SHRI DEEPAK SURESH GADGE,,NAGPUR vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1 , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

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

200 Sale of TDR 7,64,19,620 Sale of Metal & Murum 27,08,063 Total 14,76,30,883 ======== 4.2 It is apparent from above that the income arisen on sale of immovable property, which has been taken by the appellant himself as his stock-in-trade, is liable to be assessed as appellant‘s income only

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

200 sq.mtrs. in survey no.11/1, Mauja Navsari, District Amravati. The land is consistently used for agricultural purpose. It is beyond the scope of wildest imagination that usage of land is ambulatory even when character of land is agricultural. We are fortified by the judgment of Majid Khan Nisar Khan, [2017] 59 ITR (Trib.) 68 (Pune), the relevant portion

INOCME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1(5), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK , NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for A

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

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and selected for scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer made assessment on a total income of ` 50,81,436, by making following additions:– Disallowance of provision for BDDR u/s 1. ` 97,06,79,200 36(1)(vii) Interest accrued but not due on Govt

INOCME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1(5), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK , NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for A

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

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and selected for scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer made assessment on a total income of ` 50,81,436, by making following additions:– Disallowance of provision for BDDR u/s 1. ` 97,06,79,200 36(1)(vii) Interest accrued but not due on Govt

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

200 Taxman 220/12.\n8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary omit, substitute or amend the\nabove grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the of hearing of the appeal,\nso as to enable the honorable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to decide this\nappeal according to law.\"\nFacts of the case, as culled out from the impugned

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

200 Taxman 220/12. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the honorable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to decide this appeal according to law.” 3. Facts of the case, as culled out from

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

200 Taxman 220/12. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the honorable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to decide this appeal according to law.” 3. Facts of the case, as culled out from