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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the IT Act. Thus, respectfully following the above legal preposition, we are of the considered view that the addition made by Ld AO u/s 68 of the Act is liable to be deleted and order of Ld CIT(A) is set aside. Since, the addition u/s 68 is deleted on the legal ground; no further adjudication

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

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

section 68 by furnishing legal and cogent evidence like Ledger Account confirmation, ITR, Audited Financial Statements, Bank Account of the Lender, etc. Further, that transactions of loans and advances were through proper banking channel, the assessee has established the identity, creditworthiness of loan creditor and genuineness of the transactions also finds support on the basis of decision

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

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

section 68 by furnishing legal and cogent evidence like Ledger Account confirmation, ITR, Audited Financial Statements, Bank Account of the Lender, etc. Further, that transactions of loans and advances were through proper banking channel, the assessee has established the identity, creditworthiness of loan creditor and genuineness of the transactions also finds support on the basis of decision

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

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

section 68 by furnishing legal and cogent evidence like Ledger Account confirmation, ITR, Audited Financial Statements, Bank Account of the Lender, etc. Further, that transactions of loans and advances were through proper banking channel, the assessee has established the identity, creditworthiness of loan creditor and genuineness of the transactions also finds support on the basis of decision

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

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

section 68 by furnishing legal and cogent evidence like Ledger Account confirmation, ITR, Audited Financial Statements, Bank Account of the Lender, etc. Further, that transactions of loans and advances were through proper banking channel, the assessee has established the identity, creditworthiness of loan creditor and genuineness of the transactions also finds support on the basis of decision

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

34 Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal ITA no.375/Nag./2024 construction of the language of section 57(iii) of the Act, leads to the conclusions that to bring a case within that section it is not necessary that any income should in fact have been earned as a result of the expenditure. What section 57(iii) of the Act requires

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon’Ble Accountant, Member Atul Manoharrao Yamsanwar V. Acit – Central Circle – 2(1) Plot No. 33, Manoharrao Room No. 312, 3Rd Floor Khare Town, Dharampeth Aayakar Bhavan, Telangkhedi Road Nagpur - 440010 Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440001 Pan – Aaepy4543Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

68: Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous years and the assessee offers no explanations about nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the assessing officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income tax as the income

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. Long term capital gains declared in the return of income and exemption claimed hereby accepted as shown in return of income. Accordingly, we direct to delete the impugned addition made at Rs.1,50,73,436. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 34

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 was not proper.” These judgements make it amply clear that the receipts that have already been shown by the assessee as income in the books of accounts/original returns and returns filed u/s 153A also cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits u/s 68. In the circumstances of the case and in view of aforecited judgements. I hold

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 69C. Since no reference could have been made, the addition with reference to the Departmental valuation officer's report was held untenable. The answer could have been different, if the addition was ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 based on enquiry by the Assessing Officer

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 69C. Since no reference could have been made, the addition with reference to the Departmental valuation officer's report was held untenable. The answer could have been different, if the addition was ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 based on enquiry by the Assessing Officer

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 69C. Since no reference could have been made, the addition with reference to the Departmental valuation officer's report was held untenable. The answer could have been different, if the addition was ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 based on enquiry by the Assessing Officer

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 69C. Since no reference could have been made, the addition with reference to the Departmental valuation officer's report was held untenable. The answer could have been different, if the addition was ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 based on enquiry by the Assessing Officer

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 69C. Since no reference could have been made, the addition with reference to the Departmental valuation officer's report was held untenable. The answer could have been different, if the addition was ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 based on enquiry by the Assessing Officer

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 69C. Since no reference could have been made, the addition with reference to the Departmental valuation officer's report was held untenable. The answer could have been different, if the addition was ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 based on enquiry by the Assessing Officer

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

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

section 68 of the Act was directed to be deleted by the learned CIT(A). The observations so made by the learned CIT(A), vide Page–19 to 34

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

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the AO did not find the explanation offered by the assessee satisfactory and stated that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus towards explaining the credit of Rs.15,00,000/-. We respectfully object to the above observations and allegations made by the AO as the same are based

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. Long term capital gains declared in the return of income and exemption claimed hereby accepted as shown in return of income. Accordingly, we direct to delete the impugned addition made at Rs.1,50,73,436. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 34