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

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 neither suffers from any perversity nor gives rise to any substantial question of law." 5 M/s. Raghav Finvest Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.121/Nag./2020 The above case laws have been referred only for the proposition that if the shareholders are found to be not having adequate means, the addition can be made

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

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 neither suffers from any perversity nor gives rise to any substantial question of law." 5 M/s. Raghav Finvest Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.121/Nag./2020 The above case laws have been referred only for the proposition that if the shareholders are found to be not having adequate means, the addition can be made

DAYAL COTSPIN LIMITED,AKOLA vs. ACIT, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

68 of I.T. Act 1961 by A.O. and thereby dismissing the ground of appeal of assessee. 9. The learned CIT(A) erred in not granting personal hearing as prayed in written submission at pra 8 uploaded on 21/10/2023. Order passed by CIT(A) is in violation of principles of natural justice and is not in accordance with

RAJESH SARDA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Rajesh Sarda, Acit, Central Circle – 2(2), Nagpur 14, Daga Lay–Out, Ambazari Road, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440033. Maharashtra – 440001. [Pan: Ahaps4925M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) – 3, Nagpur dated 11.02.2022 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015–16. The the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Order passed

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON vs. RENUKA OIL INDUSTRIES, KHAMGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

254 of the Act or Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 250 of the Act. It has also been held in various subsequent case laws that this restriction is not applicable to the appellate authorities and that the appellate authorities can entertain claims made otherwise than by way of return or revised return of income provided the appellate

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

254 ITR 554). In the following decisions courts have held that even if it is a benevolent circular it is binding on the authorities of the tax department: Navnitlal C. Jhaveri (56 ITR 198 at 203) (SC); Ellerman Lines Ltd versus CIT (82 ITR 913 at 920-1) (SC); K.P. Varghese (131 ITR 597); and UCO Bank versus

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

254 ITR 554). In the following decisions courts have held that even if it is a benevolent circular it is binding on the authorities of the tax department: Navnitlal C. Jhaveri (56 ITR 198 at 203) (SC); Ellerman Lines Ltd versus CIT (82 ITR 913 at 920-1) (SC); K.P. Varghese (131 ITR 597); and UCO Bank versus

ASSTT. CIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI SURESHCHAND MAHESHCHAND AGRAWAL , NAGPUR

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Income Tax Officer, Sh. Suresh Rochaldas Ward-4(2), Kewalramani, Nagpur Vs. 73, Whole Sale Cloth Market Gandhibagh, Nagpur Pan:Aaspk 5750F (Respondent) (Appellant) Asst. Cit, Sh. Sureshchand M. Agrawal Central Circle-1(1), 150, Agrawal Building, Nagpur-440 001 Vs. Ravi Nagar Chowk, Nagpur-440 001 Pan:Abfpa 6839D (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.10/Nag/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.149/Nag/2018) (Assessment Year 2013-14) Sh. Sureshchand M. Agrawal Asst. Cit, 150, Agrawal Building, Central Circle-1(1), Ravi Nagar Chowk, Vs. Nagpur-440 002 Nagpur-440 001 Pan:Abfpa 6839D (Respondent) (Appellant) Income Tax Officer, Smt. Mangalaudapure Cotton Ward-4(3), Market Nagpur -440 001 Vs. Subhash Road, Shaniwari Nagpur-440 018 Pan:Aaepu 3996K (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act of the realized sale of shares as Penny Stocks. All the above appeal are filed prior to 06/09/2019 and the tax effect in all the Appeals are below 50,00,000/-. The details of the respective appeal are here under: Sr. Respondent ITA No. AY ITA filed on Relief Tax Effect No Granted including interest

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI SURESH ROCHALDAS KEWALRAMANI, NAGPUR

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Income Tax Officer, Sh. Suresh Rochaldas Ward-4(2), Kewalramani, Nagpur Vs. 73, Whole Sale Cloth Market Gandhibagh, Nagpur Pan:Aaspk 5750F (Respondent) (Appellant) Asst. Cit, Sh. Sureshchand M. Agrawal Central Circle-1(1), 150, Agrawal Building, Nagpur-440 001 Vs. Ravi Nagar Chowk, Nagpur-440 001 Pan:Abfpa 6839D (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.10/Nag/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.149/Nag/2018) (Assessment Year 2013-14) Sh. Sureshchand M. Agrawal Asst. Cit, 150, Agrawal Building, Central Circle-1(1), Ravi Nagar Chowk, Vs. Nagpur-440 002 Nagpur-440 001 Pan:Abfpa 6839D (Respondent) (Appellant) Income Tax Officer, Smt. Mangalaudapure Cotton Ward-4(3), Market Nagpur -440 001 Vs. Subhash Road, Shaniwari Nagpur-440 018 Pan:Aaepu 3996K (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act of the realized sale of shares as Penny Stocks. All the above appeal are filed prior to 06/09/2019 and the tax effect in all the Appeals are below 50,00,000/-. The details of the respective appeal are here under: Sr. Respondent ITA No. AY ITA filed on Relief Tax Effect No Granted including interest

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3), NAGPUR vs. SHRIMATI MANGALA UDAPURE, NAGPUR

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Income Tax Officer, Sh. Suresh Rochaldas Ward-4(2), Kewalramani, Nagpur Vs. 73, Whole Sale Cloth Market Gandhibagh, Nagpur Pan:Aaspk 5750F (Respondent) (Appellant) Asst. Cit, Sh. Sureshchand M. Agrawal Central Circle-1(1), 150, Agrawal Building, Nagpur-440 001 Vs. Ravi Nagar Chowk, Nagpur-440 001 Pan:Abfpa 6839D (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.10/Nag/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.149/Nag/2018) (Assessment Year 2013-14) Sh. Sureshchand M. Agrawal Asst. Cit, 150, Agrawal Building, Central Circle-1(1), Ravi Nagar Chowk, Vs. Nagpur-440 002 Nagpur-440 001 Pan:Abfpa 6839D (Respondent) (Appellant) Income Tax Officer, Smt. Mangalaudapure Cotton Ward-4(3), Market Nagpur -440 001 Vs. Subhash Road, Shaniwari Nagpur-440 018 Pan:Aaepu 3996K (Appellant) (Respondent)

68 of the Act of the realized sale of shares as Penny Stocks. All the above appeal are filed prior to 06/09/2019 and the tax effect in all the Appeals are below 50,00,000/-. The details of the respective appeal are here under: Sr. Respondent ITA No. AY ITA filed on Relief Tax Effect No Granted including interest

SNNEHSHILP CONSTRUCTIONS,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(5), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 254 of the Act vide order dated 08/09/2016, determining income of ` 53,44,392, which included addition of ` 24,09,973, @ 8% on gross receipt of ` 3,01,24,661. The assessee being aggrieved with the order so passed by the learned CIT(A), is in further appeal before the learned CIT(A). 8. The learned

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. SHRI. ASHISH NATHA CHAKKARWAR, PUSAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Dcit, Cc–1(1), Shri Ashish Natha Chakkarwar, 2Nd Floor, Room No. 205, Aayakar Vs Moti Nagar, Tilak Ward, Bhawan, Telangkhedi Road, Civil Pusad, Maharashtra – 445204. Lines, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001 [Pan: Aegpc2887R] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 09/05/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income

NARAYAN BHAGYACHANDRA KHATRI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Narayan Bhagyachandra Khatri Acit, Amravati Circle, Amravati Flat No. Sp-2/102, Streling Springdale Vs Aayakarbhavan, Near Dps School, Apartment, Raj Nagar, Nagpur, Saturna, Amravati, Maharashtra – 440013. Maharashtra – 440006. [Pan: Aaccg4441J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, New Delhi dated 10.07.2024 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017–18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. THAT considering the facts of the case, the learned AO erred in rejecting

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

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

254] which states that under mercantile system of accounting what is receivable is brought into credit before its actually received. 3. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals), Nagpur is justified in deleting the addition made on account of profit on sale of assets, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not submitted

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

254] which states that under mercantile system of accounting what is receivable is brought into credit before its actually received. 3. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals), Nagpur is justified in deleting the addition made on account of profit on sale of assets, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not submitted

ASSTT. CIT, CIR- 7, NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEWQUEST CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

68,734/- is directed to be deleted. This ground is therefore allowed. 9.2 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noted that the AO made an addition of Rs.8,65,86,734/- treating the long term capital loss as a business loss. However, the ld. CIT(A) taking into

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AKOLA, NAGPUR vs. RBSD AND FN DAS, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

section of Act. In this ground there are two different additions are made: one is addition towards opening sundry creditors and second one is regarding addition towards credits in sundry creditors is discussed as below: The AO during the assessment proceeding noticed that there are opening credit balances in accounts of 12 Sundry creditors totalling