DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2 (1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

201 PAN – AAATJ1449G Assessee by : Shri Mahavir Atal Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 28/01/2025 Date of Order – 03/04/2025 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the impugned orders of even date 11/08/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [―learned

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

201 PAN – AAATJ1449G Assessee by : Shri Mahavir Atal Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 28/01/2025 Date of Order – 03/04/2025 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the impugned orders of even date 11/08/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [―learned

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

201 PAN – AAATJ1449G Assessee by : Shri Mahavir Atal Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 28/01/2025 Date of Order – 03/04/2025 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the impugned orders of even date 11/08/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [―learned

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. METROCITY HOMES, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

201-C 500000 Already added in Para 3, Ground No. 1 Rs. 5,00,000/-\n20 Manish Malviya 1601950\nFurther the additions made in above grounds, i.e. Ground No. 1 to Ground No. 3 are on the basis of On-Money received from the customers by the assessee. There was no action taken on the customers as after receiving summons

AHSAAN QURESHI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

section 201(1) of the Act by Finance Act, 2012, has no retrospective effect and the case laws relied upon by the assessee are not relevant with the facts of the case and therefore, the learned CIT(A) did not 4 Ahsaan Qureshi ITA no.323/Nag./2023 find any merit and held that the Assessing Officer was right in adding

M/S MANASVI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CPC, GAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara

201 6 - 1 7 . 2. T his seks to adjudicate t he isue of authorisation of levy of fes u/s 234E for default in furnishing statement u/s 20(3) in the absence of enabling provision. 3. Since the facts and isue involved in these bunch of twenty thre apeals are identical, with the agrement of both the parties; are clubed

ARCHANA VIDYANIKETAN LAKHPURI ,AKOLA vs. ACIT-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara

201 6 - 1 7 . 2. T his seks to adjudicate t he isue of authorisation of levy of fes u/s 234E for default in furnishing statement u/s 20(3) in the absence of enabling provision. 3. Since the facts and isue involved in these bunch of twenty thre apeals are identical, with the agrement of both the parties; are clubed

ARCHANA VIDYANIKETAN LAKHPURI ,AKOLA vs. ACIT-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara

201 6 - 1 7 . 2. T his seks to adjudicate t he isue of authorisation of levy of fes u/s 234E for default in furnishing statement u/s 20(3) in the absence of enabling provision. 3. Since the facts and isue involved in these bunch of twenty thre apeals are identical, with the agrement of both the parties; are clubed

ADILOK VIDYALAYA BODUNDA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4), BHANDARA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara

201 6 - 1 7 . 2. T his seks to adjudicate t he isue of authorisation of levy of fes u/s 234E for default in furnishing statement u/s 20(3) in the absence of enabling provision. 3. Since the facts and isue involved in these bunch of twenty thre apeals are identical, with the agrement of both the parties; are clubed

NAGESHWARA CHARITABLE TRUST,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, EXEMPTION, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

201, interest from Bank at ` 17,75,454, and surplus on sale of Vanamrut at ` 6,45,432. The Assessing Officer also noted that the assessee trust has also claimed corpus donation at ` 80,000, which was verified from receipt books. In this regard, the Assessing Officer granted opportunity to the assessee to produce the donors for verification and/or submit

NAGESHWARA CHARITABLE TRUST,NAGPUR vs. ITO WD 3, EXEMP, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

201, interest from Bank at ` 17,75,454, and surplus on sale of Vanamrut at ` 6,45,432. The Assessing Officer also noted that the assessee trust has also claimed corpus donation at ` 80,000, which was verified from receipt books. In this regard, the Assessing Officer granted opportunity to the assessee to produce the donors for verification and/or submit

SHRI SHANKARLAL CHANDUMAL 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 Shankarlal Chandumal Tanwani Vs. The Acit 41, Prop. Shankar Kirana, Tar Bazar, Central Circle 2(1) Main Road,Pandhurna 480334 (M.P.) Nagpur Pan No.:Aiqpt 1252 M 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 7Th 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 could have been considered; but that was not the case of the AO. Accordingly, addition made under section 69A could not be upheld. 2) DCITvs.Karthik Construction Co.2018 TaxPub(DT) 1507 (Mum-Trib) Held : As could be seen from the facts on record, the existence of the creditors had been established. Moreover, when the unsecured loans were not taken

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. VINODKUMAR RAJENDRALAL KOCHHAR, KAMPTEE

In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Nagpur [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the department are as follows: [1] The learned CIT(A) erred in quashing the impugned order dated 30.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 B without

DY. C.I.T. CIR., -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S. SARAL METALLUGICALS PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Dcit Vs. M/S. Saral Metallurgicals Pvt. Ltd. Circle-2 31, 301, Sharda Manor, Cement Road Nagpur Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur – 440 010 Pan No.:Aajcs 5019 H Appellant Respondent

68 by Finance Act, 2012, the tax payers are not required to explain source of source of funds. 2.3 The ld DR took us through the Assessment Order. The Assessing Officer added an amount of Rs 2,37,00,000/- as unexplained credits. The reasons stated by the AO in the assessment order is as under’  “Thus, the very basis

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEEL INFRATECH, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed

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

201-202, 2nd Floor, 16, Ujjwal Co-Op.Housing Society, Narendra Nagar ……………. Respondent Square, Ring Road, Nagpur. PAN : AAHFN9427H Assessee by : Shri Suren Duragkar, CA Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing – 29/07/2024 Date of Order – 31/07/2024 O R D E R PER K.M.ROY, A.M. The present appeal has been preferred by the department challenging the impugned order

AKSHAY GAJANAN SURYAWANSHI DESHMUKH,CHIKHLI vs. ITO WARD-2, KHAMGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

201 PAN–ENTPS5070Q v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–2, Khamgaon Assessee by : Shri Kishore P. Dewani Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 29/01/2025 Date of Order – 10/02/2025 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. The aforesaid appeal by the assessee is emanating from the impugned order dated 13/05/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner