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

68,000, was made on account of alleged commission income. A survey action under section 133A of the Act was also carried out at the official premises of assessee i.e., M/s. SNJ & Associates, (a Partnership Firm in which Shri Sanjay Jain, who is a Chartered Accountant, is also a Partner) situated at 1st Floor, Mangalam Icon, Ramnagar Square, Nagpur

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

68,000, was made on account of alleged commission income. A survey action under section 133A of the Act was also carried out at the official premises of assessee i.e., M/s. SNJ & Associates, (a Partnership Firm in which Shri Sanjay Jain, who is a Chartered Accountant, is also a Partner) situated at 1st Floor, Mangalam Icon, Ramnagar Square, Nagpur

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

68,000, was made on account of alleged commission income. A survey action under section 133A of the Act was also carried out at the official premises of assessee i.e., M/s. SNJ & Associates, (a Partnership Firm in which Shri Sanjay Jain, who is a Chartered Accountant, is also a Partner) situated at 1st Floor, Mangalam Icon, Ramnagar Square, Nagpur

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

68,000, was made on account of alleged commission income. A survey action under section 133A of the Act was also carried out at the official premises of assessee i.e., M/s. SNJ & Associates, (a Partnership Firm in which Shri Sanjay Jain, who is a Chartered Accountant, is also a Partner) situated at 1st Floor, Mangalam Icon, Ramnagar Square, Nagpur

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

68,000, was made on account of alleged commission income. A survey action under section 133A of the Act was also carried out at the official premises of assessee i.e., M/s. SNJ & Associates, (a Partnership Firm in which Shri Sanjay Jain, who is a Chartered Accountant, is also a Partner) situated at 1st Floor, Mangalam Icon, Ramnagar Square, Nagpur

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

68,000, was made on account of alleged commission income. A survey action under section 133A of the Act was also carried out at the official premises of assessee i.e., M/s. SNJ & Associates, (a Partnership Firm in which Shri Sanjay Jain, who is a Chartered Accountant, is also a Partner) 5 Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain ITA no.53, to 59/Nag

SANJAY GULABCHAND GUPTA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

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

Section 54 must be completed within three years after the transfer of original assets. (Para 4.13 AO's Order) & 4.16 of A.O’s order) 5. Land use was for Commercial purposes. 4. So basically there is no dispute as regards calculations of Capital gains. However the claim of exemption u/s 54F is disallowed for above reasons. Pertinent to note

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

68,987/-which does not tally with the figure of Rs 1,82,92,500/- mentioned in the loose chit. Thus, the figures mentioned in the impugned undated document were mere rough discussion figures. c) The Ld. CIT(A) in Para 8.2 of his order accepted that there is merit in the submission of the assessee that the noting made

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

68,987/-which does not tally with the figure of Rs 1,82,92,500/- mentioned in the loose chit. Thus, the figures mentioned in the impugned undated document were mere rough discussion figures. c) The Ld. CIT(A) in Para 8.2 of his order accepted that there is merit in the submission of the assessee that the noting made

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

68,987/-which does not tally with the figure of Rs 1,82,92,500/- mentioned in the loose chit. Thus, the figures mentioned in the impugned undated document were mere rough discussion figures. c) The Ld. CIT(A) in Para 8.2 of his order accepted that there is merit in the submission of the assessee that the noting made

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

68,987/-which does not tally with the figure of Rs 1,82,92,500/- mentioned in the loose chit. Thus, the figures mentioned in the impugned undated document were mere rough discussion figures. c) The Ld. CIT(A) in Para 8.2 of his order accepted that there is merit in the submission of the assessee that the noting made

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

68,987/-which does not tally with the figure of Rs 1,82,92,500/- mentioned in the loose chit. Thus, the figures mentioned in the impugned undated document were mere rough discussion figures. c) The Ld. CIT(A) in Para 8.2 of his order accepted that there is merit in the submission of the assessee that the noting made

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

68,987/-which does not tally with the figure of Rs 1,82,92,500/- mentioned in the loose chit. Thus, the figures mentioned in the impugned undated document were mere rough discussion figures. c) The Ld. CIT(A) in Para 8.2 of his order accepted that there is merit in the submission of the assessee that the noting made

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET AX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI SANJAY GAURISHANKAR AGRAWAL , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

68 of the I.T. Act is unjustified and unsustainable. The AO is accordingly directed to delete the addition of Rs. 12,50,00,000/-. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are accordingly allowed.” 5. Before us, the learned Departmental Representative, Shri Sandipkumar Salunke, strongly supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 6. The learned Counsel for the assessee, Shri Kapil

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S SPACEWOOD FURNISHERS PVT. LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and the C

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Dcit Vs. M/S. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 1(3) T-48, Midc, Hinga, Nagpur Nagpur Pan No.: Aaccs 4955 R Appellant Respondent

374 ITR P.645 (Bom.) (Supra) has held the decision of Special Bench ITAT Mumbai is correctly decided and has held that if there is no incriminating material found during the search there is no warrants for making an order within the meaning of the said provisions. Hon’ble Bombay H.C. in the case of CIT Vs. Gurinder Singh Bawa

DCIT CC 1(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. BRINDESH GOVERDHANDAS AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

2. The assessee purchased a property bearing Plot no.51, at Central Road Section–III scheme of NIT, Hiwari, Nagpur vide sale deed dated 29.9.2017 (related to AY 2018-19) for a total consideration of Rs. 1,41,00,000 from Shri Wardhman Sahakari Griha Nirman Samiti Ltd. In the transaction, Shri Suresh C. Vakharia, Shri Shailesh C. Vakharia

ASSTT.COMISSIOENR OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1) , NAGPUR vs. SHRI SANJAY GAURISHANKAR AGRAWAL , NAGPUR

Accordingly directed to delete the addition of Rs.1,80,00,000/-. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are accordingly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the first and foremost common legal issue herein that arise for our apt adjudication is that of validity of the impugned assessments itself wherein the CIT(A) has held that the same are not sustainable in law since not based on any incriminating material found or seized during the course

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET AX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI SANJAY GAURISHANKAR AGRAWAL , NAGPUR

Accordingly directed to delete the addition of Rs.1,80,00,000/-. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are accordingly allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the first and foremost common legal issue herein that arise for our apt adjudication is that of validity of the impugned assessments itself wherein the CIT(A) has held that the same are not sustainable in law since not based on any incriminating material found or seized during the course