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

5. The Ld. AR further drew our attention to the fact that the applicable assessment year in the said appeal was AY 2011-12 where the dispute was relating to receipt of funds from M/s Nakshatra Business Pvt. Ltd. which is the same company from where funds have been received in impugned appeal for AY 2011-12. 7 ITA 178/NAG

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

21. Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 reads as under: 49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered.-No document required by section 17(1) or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered shall- • (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or • (b) confer

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

21] The decisions relating to section 37 will also be applicable to section 36(1)(iii) because in section 37 also the expression used is 'for the purpose of business'. It has been consistently held in decisions relating to section 37 that the expression 'for the purpose of business' includes 16 Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal ITA no.375/Nag

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

5. Heard Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the revenue. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Assessing Officer directed to make the addition of Rs. 33,55,011/- under section 68 of the Income-tax Act with respect to 17 lenders. However, it has been found that with respect to most

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

5. Heard Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the\nrevenue. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Assessing Officer\ndirected to make the addition of Rs. 33,55,011/- under section 68 of the\nIncome-tax Act with respect to 17 lenders. However, it has been found that\nwith respect to most

THE DY. C.I.T., CENTRAL CIR. 2(1),, NAGPUR vs. M/S MAHAVIR COAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

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

5 of the judgment, has held as under:– “(e) We find that the proviso to Section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1st April, 2013. Thus it would be effective only from the Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards and not for the subject Assessment Year. In fact, before the Tribunal

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

5. Heard Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the\nrevenue. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Assessing Officer\ndirected to make the addition of Rs. 33,55,011/- under section 68 of the\nIncome-tax Act with respect to 17 lenders. However, it has been found that\nwith respect to most

THE DY. C.I.T., CENTRAL CIR. 2(1),, NAGPUR vs. M/S MAHAVIR COAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

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

5 of the judgment, has held as under:– “(e) We find that the proviso to Section 68 of the Act has been introduced by the Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1st April, 2013. Thus it would be effective only from the Assessment Year 2013-14 onwards and not for the subject Assessment Year. In fact, before the Tribunal

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

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

5. Heard Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the\nrevenue. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Assessing Officer\ndirected to make the addition of Rs. 33,55,011/- under section 68 of the\nIncome-tax Act with respect to 17 lenders. However, it has been found that\nwith respect to most

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

5. Heard Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the\nrevenue. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Assessing Officer\ndirected to make the addition of Rs. 33,55,011/- under section 68 of the\nIncome-tax Act with respect to 17 lenders. However, it has been found that\nwith respect to most

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

5. Heard Shri Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the\nrevenue. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Assessing Officer\ndirected to make the addition of Rs. 33,55,011/- under section 68 of the\nIncome-tax Act with respect to 17 lenders. However, it has been found that\nwith respect to most

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

21,488/- 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 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

21,488/- 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

21,488/- 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

21,488/- 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