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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 to confirm the additions. PI. refer CIT,Poona Vs Bhaichand 141 ITR 67(Bomb). 28.It is most respectfully submitted that both the lower authorities failed to consider the legal decisions rendered in this regard . CIT (A) in very summary manner disregarded the decision of Allahabad High court in CIT Vs Intezar Ali . (Appeal No.162 of 2013) which is aptly

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 234A and 234B of the Act on the basis that interest charged, we find it to be improper. However, nothing was specifically contended before us. Therefore, the ground no.4 raised by the assessee is dismissed. In the result, appeal by the assessee for A.Y. 2011–12 stands partly allowed. ITA no. 55/Nag./2022 Assessee's Appeal

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

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

section 234A and 234B of the Act on the\nbasis that interest charged, we find it to be improper. However, nothing was\nspecifically contended before us. Therefore, the ground no.4 raised by the\nassessee is dismissed.\nIn the result, appeal by the assessee for A.Y. 2011–12 stands partly\nallowed.\nITA no. 55/Nag./2022\nAssessee's Appeal

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

section 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

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

section 234A and 234B of the Act on the\nbasis that interest charged, we find it to be improper. However, nothing was\nspecifically contended before us. Therefore, the ground no.4 raised by the\nassessee is dismissed.\n14.\nIn the result, appeal by the assessee for A.Y. 2011–12 stands partly\nallowed.\nITA no. 55/Nag./2022\nAssessee's Appeal

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 234A and 234B of the Act on the\nbasis that interest charged, we find it to be improper. However, nothing was\nspecifically contended before us. Therefore, the ground no.4 raised by the\nassessee is dismissed.\n\n14.\nIn the result, appeal by the assessee for A.Y. 2011–12 stands partly\nallowed.\n\nITA no. 55/Nag./2022\nAssessee

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

section 234A and 234B of the Act on the\nbasis that interest charged, we find it to be improper. However, nothing was\nspecifically contended before us. Therefore, the ground no.4 raised by the\nassessee is dismissed.\n\n14.\nIn the result, appeal by the assessee for A.Y. 2011–12 stands partly\nallowed.\n\nITA no. 55/Nag./2022\nAssessee

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

section 234A and 234B of the Act on the\nbasis that interest charged, we find it to be improper. However, nothing was\nspecifically contended before us. Therefore, the ground no.4 raised by the\nassessee is dismissed.\n14. In the result, appeal by the assessee for A.Y. 2011–12 stands partly\nallowed.\nITA no. 55/Nag./2022\nAssessee's Appeal

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

29. Amendment of section 69C.-29.1 Under the existing provisions, where an expenditure incurred by the taxpayer in respect of which he either offers no explanation regarding expenditure such expenditure or where explanation offered is found unsatisfactory, the expenditure is treated as "income" under section 69C. There is corresponding provision for disallowance of such expenditure. 29.2 This used

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

29. Amendment of section 69C.-29.1 Under the existing provisions, where an expenditure incurred by the taxpayer in respect of which he either offers no explanation regarding expenditure such expenditure or where explanation offered is found unsatisfactory, the expenditure is treated as "income" under section 69C. There is corresponding provision for disallowance of such expenditure. 29.2 This used

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

29. Amendment of section 69C.-29.1 Under the existing provisions, where an expenditure incurred by the taxpayer in respect of which he either offers no explanation regarding expenditure such expenditure or where explanation offered is found unsatisfactory, the expenditure is treated as "income" under section 69C. There is corresponding provision for disallowance of such expenditure. 29.2 This used

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

29. Amendment of section 69C.-29.1 Under the existing provisions, where an expenditure incurred by the taxpayer in respect of which he either offers no explanation regarding expenditure such expenditure or where explanation offered is found unsatisfactory, the expenditure is treated as "income" under section 69C. There is corresponding provision for disallowance of such expenditure. 29.2 This used

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

29. Amendment of section 69C.-29.1 Under the existing provisions, where an expenditure incurred by the taxpayer in respect of which he either offers no explanation regarding expenditure such expenditure or where explanation offered is found unsatisfactory, the expenditure is treated as "income" under section 69C. There is corresponding provision for disallowance of such expenditure. 29.2 This used

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

29. Amendment of section 69C.-29.1 Under the existing provisions, where an expenditure incurred by the taxpayer in respect of which he either offers no explanation regarding expenditure such expenditure or where explanation offered is found unsatisfactory, the expenditure is treated as "income" under section 69C. There is corresponding provision for disallowance of such expenditure. 29.2 This used

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 inapplicable. Reliance on: Hon’ble ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in case of Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences in ITA No.07/Nag/2007 vide order dated 16/03/2007. (P- 1 to 17) (12) [Vol.-I] L) No observation is made in respect to transaction of assessee or is relating to company in which investment has been made by assessee

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

68 of the Act. 27. The learned Departmental Representative has referred to judicial precedent in Suman Poddar which has been referred to as that of the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court. The aforesaid decision in fact is rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and is reported as 423 ITR 480 (Del). The aforesaid decision of Suman Poddar

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. 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