ITO, WARD- 1)1), NAGPUR vs. AXYKNO ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act. The assessee had during the year received share application money amounting to ` 1,58,50,000, from the following companies:– ` 16,50,000 i) M/s Viraj Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. ` 37

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 April, 1999. Board Circular, which explains the amendment as under: “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

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 April, 1999. Board Circular, which explains the amendment as under: “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

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 April, 1999. Board Circular, which explains the amendment as under: “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

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 April, 1999. Board Circular, which explains the amendment as under: “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

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 April, 1999. Board Circular, which explains the amendment as under: “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

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 April, 1999. Board Circular, which explains the amendment as under: “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

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

68; the Assessing Officer has not made any addition on „undisclosed asset‟ which is sine qua non/pre-condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153C for „relevant AY‟ as per „fourth proviso‟ to section 153A(1) read with Explanation-2, whether or not, in absence of this, the assessment made under section 153C

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

68; the Assessing Officer has not made any addition on „undisclosed asset‟ which is sine qua non/pre-condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153C for „relevant AY‟ as per „fourth proviso‟ to section 153A(1) read with Explanation-2, whether or not, in absence of this, the assessment made under section 153C

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

68; the Assessing Officer has not made any addition on „undisclosed asset‟ which is sine qua non/pre-condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153C for „relevant AY‟ as per „fourth proviso‟ to section 153A(1) read with Explanation-2, whether or not, in absence of this, the assessment made under section 153C

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

68; the Assessing Officer has not made any addition on „undisclosed asset‟ which is sine qua non/pre-condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153C for „relevant AY‟ as per „fourth proviso‟ to section 153A(1) read with Explanation-2, whether or not, in absence of this, the assessment made under section 153C

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

68; the Assessing Officer has not made any addition on „undisclosed asset‟ which is sine qua non/pre-condition for assuming valid jurisdiction for making assessment under section 153C for „relevant AY‟ as per „fourth proviso‟ to section 153A(1) read with Explanation-2, whether or not, in absence of this, the assessment made under section 153C

PRITAM SINGH CHARAN SINGH GUJJAR,NAGPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

37,36,000 5,11,250 3. F–1/502 33,94,500 35,39,000 34,30,000 35,500 Total 97,11,500 1,09,83,000 1,03,93,000 6,81,500 The difference between agreement value and value determined by DVO is Rs.6,81,500/-. In terms of percentage the difference is 7% approximately. The short

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

68 of the Act at ₹ 15 lakh is hereby directed to be deleted. Thus, the grounds no.5 and 6 raised by the assessee are allowed. 37. In ground no.7, the assessee has challenged the charging of interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act on the basis that interest charged is improper. However, nothing was specifically contended before

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

1. Ground on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing the depreciation of Rs.5,57,40,754/- when the claim of depreciation on assets, already applied against the receipts of the trust. The depreciation cannot be allowed as deduction as per the provision of section

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

1. Ground on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing the depreciation of Rs.5,57,40,754/- when the claim of depreciation on assets, already applied against the receipts of the trust. The depreciation cannot be allowed as deduction as per the provision of section

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

1. Ground on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing the depreciation of Rs.5,57,40,754/- when the claim of depreciation on assets, already applied against the receipts of the trust. The depreciation cannot be allowed as deduction as per the provision of section

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 is clear. The Legislature has laid down that in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year. In this, case the legislative mandate is not in terms of the words "shall be charged to income-tax as the income