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

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned First Appellate Authority was justified in endorsing the addition made under section 68 of Rs.5,20,84,000/-. Specifically in the light of the facts that the appellant has duly maintained all requisite records prescribed by the act and the deeming fiction of section 68 have

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

32 Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10 to 2013–14 rendered in Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra) wherein it has been held that satisfaction note is required to be recorded under section 153C for each assessment year and in the impugned proceedings, a consolidated satisfaction note has been recorded for different assessment year by both the Assessing

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

32 Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10 to 2013–14 rendered in Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra) wherein it has been held that satisfaction note is required to be recorded under section 153C for each assessment year and in the impugned proceedings, a consolidated satisfaction note has been recorded for different assessment year by both the Assessing

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

32 Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10 to 2013–14 rendered in Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra) wherein it has been held that satisfaction note is required to be recorded under section 153C for each assessment year and in the impugned proceedings, a consolidated satisfaction note has been recorded for different assessment year by both the Assessing

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

32 Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10 to 2013–14 rendered in Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra) wherein it has been held that satisfaction note is required to be recorded under section 153C for each assessment year and in the impugned proceedings, a consolidated satisfaction note has been recorded for different assessment year by both the Assessing

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

32 Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10 to 2013–14 rendered in Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra) wherein it has been held that satisfaction note is required to be recorded under section 153C for each assessment year and in the impugned proceedings, a consolidated satisfaction note has been recorded for different assessment year by both the Assessing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCEL-1(2, NAGPUR vs. M/S. VIBRANT GLOBAL CAPITAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 133(6) of I.T. Act 1961. Similar facts exist in respect to all the lenders as all have responded to notice u/s 133(6) in remand proceedings. No justification remains to make addition u/s 68 of I.T. Act 1961. I) It is settled position of law that assessee has no obligation to explain source of source. Repayment

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

1,00,00,000/- M/s Surendra Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 3,00,00,000/- -------------------- Total Rs. 4,00,00,000/- The above lending companies are hereinafter jointly referred to as "Lenders" for the sake of convenience. 8.1 The appellant has argued that the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings submitted the loan confirmations from the Lenders confirming

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

1,00,00,000/- M/s Surendra Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 3,00,00,000/- -------------------- Total Rs. 4,00,00,000/- The above lending companies are hereinafter jointly referred to as "Lenders" for the sake of convenience. 8.1 The appellant has argued that the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings submitted the loan confirmations from the Lenders confirming

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

1,00,00,000/- M/s Surendra Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 3,00,00,000/- -------------------- Total Rs. 4,00,00,000/- The above lending companies are hereinafter jointly referred to as "Lenders" for the sake of convenience. 8.1 The appellant has argued that the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings submitted the loan confirmations from the Lenders confirming

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

1,00,00,000/- M/s Surendra Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 3,00,00,000/- -------------------- Total Rs. 4,00,00,000/- The above lending companies are hereinafter jointly referred to as "Lenders" for the sake of convenience. 8.1 The appellant has argued that the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings submitted the loan confirmations from the Lenders confirming

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

1,00,00,000/- M/s Surendra Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 3,00,00,000/- -------------------- Total Rs. 4,00,00,000/- The above lending companies are hereinafter jointly referred to as "Lenders" for the sake of convenience. 8.1 The appellant has argued that the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings submitted the loan confirmations from the Lenders confirming

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

1,00,00,000/- M/s Surendra Fiscal Services Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 3,00,00,000/- -------------------- Total Rs. 4,00,00,000/- The above lending companies are hereinafter jointly referred to as "Lenders" for the sake of convenience. 8.1 The appellant has argued that the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings submitted the loan confirmations from the Lenders confirming

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

32,51,842/- remain unexplained and there is escapement of income in absence of return of income filed. Thus income from above transaction has not been offered for tax and due tax has not been paid. An opportunity of being heard as per provision of section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was provided to the assessee

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

32,51,842/- remain unexplained and there is escapement of income in absence of return of income filed. Thus income from above transaction has not been offered for tax and due tax has not been paid. An opportunity of being heard as per provision of section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was provided to the assessee

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

32,51,842/- remain unexplained and there is escapement of income in absence of return of income filed. Thus income from above transaction has not been offered for tax and due tax has not been paid. An opportunity of being heard as per provision of section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was provided to the assessee

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

32,51,842/- remain unexplained and there is escapement of\nincome in absence of return of income filed. Thus income from above\ntransaction has not been offered for tax and due tax has not been paid. An\nopportunity of being heard as per provision of section 148A(b) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 was provided to the assessee

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

32,612, as income taxable under section 164(2) of the Act which have been recorded by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order vide Para–3.9. The learned Counsel further relied on the order of the CIT(A) and prayed before the Bench to upheld the order of the first appellate authority. 8. We have heard the rival