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

35), while dealing with the question as to whether the capital subsidies can be excluded from the computation of the book profit and following the decision of the Supreme Court in Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Ltd. (supra) held as under: “As held in the preceding paras, the subsidies received by the assessee were capital in nature and therefore not liable

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 35 of the stamp act and such document can not be accepted as legitimate evidence, 2. That the legal heir of purchaser raised doubt of existence of such agreement to sale since the said document has been alleged to contain fabricated signature by one of the purported party. 3. That evidence produced by the appellant cannot be accepted

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

2. CIT V/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (ITS No.972 of 2009) 6.3 In the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Dwarakadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. are held as under: "In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Thought in section 68 of the Income

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

2. CIT V/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (ITS No.972 of 2009) 6.3 In the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Dwarakadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. are held as under: "In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Thought in section 68 of the Income

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

2. CIT V/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (ITS No.972 of 2009) 6.3 In the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Dwarakadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. are held as under: "In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Thought in section 68 of the Income

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

2. CIT V/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (ITS No.972 of 2009) 6.3 In the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Dwarakadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. are held as under: "In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Thought in section 68 of the Income

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

2. CIT V/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (ITS No.972 of 2009) 6.3 In the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Dwarakadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. are held as under: "In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Thought in section 68 of the Income

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

2. CIT V/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (ITS No.972 of 2009) 6.3 In the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Dwarakadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. are held as under: "In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Thought in section 68 of the Income

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 68 of the Income-tax Act and consequently deleted the disallowance of Rs. 3,10,478/-, which was made with respect to interest and when the same has been confirmed by the ITAT, it cannot be said that ITAT has committed any error and/or illegality, which calls for the interference of this Court. In paragraph 11, ITAT

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

section 68 of the Income-tax Act and consequently\ndeleted the disallowance of Rs. 3,10,478/-, which was made with respect to\ninterest and when the same has been confirmed by the ITAT, it cannot be said\nthat ITAT has committed any error and/or illegality, which calls for the\ninterference of this Court.\nIn paragraph 11, ITAT

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 68 of the Income-tax Act and consequently\ndeleted the disallowance of Rs. 3,10,478/-, which was made with respect to\ninterest and when the same has been confirmed by the ITAT, it cannot be said\nthat ITAT has committed any error and/or illegality, which calls for the\ninterference of this Court.\nIn paragraph 11, ITAT

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 68 of the Income-tax Act and consequently\ndeleted the disallowance of Rs. 3,10,478/-, which was made with respect to\ninterest and when the same has been confirmed by the ITAT, it cannot be said\nthat ITAT has committed any error and/or illegality, which calls for the\ninterference of this Court.\nIn paragraph 11, ITAT

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

section 68 of the Income-tax Act and consequently\ndeleted the disallowance of Rs. 3,10,478/-, which was made with respect to\ninterest and when the same has been confirmed by the ITAT, it cannot be said\nthat ITAT has committed any error and/or illegality, which calls for the\ninterference of this Court.\nIn paragraph 11, ITAT

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

section 68 of the Income-tax Act and consequently\ndeleted the disallowance of Rs. 3,10,478/-, which was made with respect to\ninterest and when the same has been confirmed by the ITAT, it cannot be said\nthat ITAT has committed any error and/or illegality, which calls for the\ninterference of this Court.\nIn paragraph 11, ITAT

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

35 lakh as on 01/04/2012 which brought forward from earlier year(s) and thus, it is unsustainable in the eyes of law as there is no fresh credits appearing in the books of account, which is against the law laid down under section 68. It is also not cared by Addl.CIT while granting such mechanical approval on 31/03/2022

UMESH SADASHIV THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

35 lakh as on 01/04/2012 which brought forward from earlier year(s) and thus, it is unsustainable in the eyes of law as there is no fresh credits appearing in the books of account, which is against the law laid down under section 68. It is also not cared by Addl.CIT while granting such mechanical approval on 31/03/2022

UMESH SADASHIV THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

35 lakh as on 01/04/2012 which brought forward from earlier year(s) and thus, it is unsustainable in the eyes of law as there is no fresh credits appearing in the books of account, which is against the law laid down under section 68. It is also not cared by Addl.CIT while granting such mechanical approval on 31/03/2022