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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

27. Further the CIT appeal confirmed the action of AD under Section 68. It is now setelled that S.68

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

section 68 only sets up a presumption against the assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of account of the assessee. It cannot but be again said that the presumption is rebuttable. In refuting the presumption raised, the initial burden is on the assessee. This burden, which is placed on the assessee, shifts as soon

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

68 of the Act. The learned D.R. thus submitted that the relief granted by the learned CIT(A) be reversed and the order passed by the Assessing Officer be restored. 5. The gist of submission, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the assessee is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:– “Ground No.1 to 5: Addition in respect to Share Application

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. SHIKHA INDRAKUMAR AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

section 68 of the Act. 27. The learned Departmental Representative has referred to judicial precedent in Suman Poddar which

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

Section 68 mandates the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the Lenders. The Lenders ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27

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

Section 68 mandates the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the Lenders. The Lenders ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27

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

Section 68 mandates the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the Lenders. The Lenders ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27

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

Section 68 mandates the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the Lenders. The Lenders ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27

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

Section 68 mandates the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the Lenders. The Lenders ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27

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

Section 68 mandates the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the Lenders. The Lenders ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27

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:

27 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer examined the scope of section 68 of I.T. Act 1961 referring

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: 2018-19 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 /62022 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 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.

section 68 of the Act has to fail because as per 27 Nikita Shankarlal Tanwani vs ACIT, CentralCircle 2(1), Nagpur

ANKIT SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Ankit 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.:Biapt 4756 R 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 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.

68. However, AO obtained the copy of VAT return from department and found that sales figures were shown at Rs. 9 lakhs only and assessee had also filed Trading and Profit and loss account in the balance sheet with VAT return. It was held that Assessee filed an income tax return showing gross receipts of Rs. 9 lakhs and there

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

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

68 Back Rajesh A/404 3847500 2000000 1849500 Annex– 2016–17 Modak (B–1–20) Shri 01.03.2017 63 Mahesh J. 305 2945000 1500000 1445000 Annex– 2016–17 Ramdohkar (B–1–24) Shri 16.12.2016 60 Rajendra A/703 3951000 3500000 451000 Annex– 2016–17 Singh (B–1–27) Total

DCIT-CC-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. INDRAKUMAR GHISULAL AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

section 68 of the Act. 27. The learned Departmental Representative has referred to judicial precedent in Suman Poddar which

ASSISTATN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT . SUNITA SURESH KOTHARI , NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Chandana Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Ambpk 2497 G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Smita Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Alnpk 1191 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Sunita Suresh Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Affpk 2282 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Seema Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Alnpk 1190 P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Karan Kothari Aabhushan

section 68 of the Act. If the assessee furnishes an explanation, the AO should examine whether the explanation so offered establishes the three ingredients i.e. identity of the creditor, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. If the explanation so offered by the assessee is not acceptable or reliable, the AO should give a detailed reasoning

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CRICLE -2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. CHANDANA KOTHARI , NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Chandana Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Ambpk 2497 G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Smita Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Alnpk 1191 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Sunita Suresh Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Affpk 2282 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Seema Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Alnpk 1190 P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Karan Kothari Aabhushan

section 68 of the Act. If the assessee furnishes an explanation, the AO should examine whether the explanation so offered establishes the three ingredients i.e. identity of the creditor, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. If the explanation so offered by the assessee is not acceptable or reliable, the AO should give a detailed reasoning

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT . SEEMA KOTHARI , NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Chandana Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Ambpk 2497 G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Smita Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Alnpk 1191 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Sunita Suresh Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Affpk 2282 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Seema Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Alnpk 1190 P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Karan Kothari Aabhushan

section 68 of the Act. If the assessee furnishes an explanation, the AO should examine whether the explanation so offered establishes the three ingredients i.e. identity of the creditor, creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. If the explanation so offered by the assessee is not acceptable or reliable, the AO should give a detailed reasoning