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

43(1) while passing the order for AY 2013-14 u/s 154 dated 23.11.2016 and for AY 2014-15 u/s 143(3) dated 24.11.2016 since the assessee had not suo-moto reduced the same in those years. It is the settled legal position that the orders, instructions, circulars, directions, etc., issued by the Board are binding on the Officers

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

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

43(1) while passing the order for AY 2013-14 u/s 154 dated 23.11.2016 and for AY 2014-15 u/s 143(3) dated 24.11.2016 since the assessee had not suo-moto reduced the same in those years. It is the settled legal position that the orders, instructions, circulars, directions, etc., issued by the Board are binding on the Officers

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

43 Shah Brothers 1,23,750 12,375 44 Sharad Makhanlal Agrawal HUF 15,334 1,534 45 Snehlata B Shah 1,21,667 12,167 46 Sukhdeo Sitaram 1,02,634 10,264 47 Sumit Traders 32,700 3,270 48 Tulsiram Goenka & Co 1,23,450 12,345 49 Tulsiram R Goenka 87,667 8,767 50 Uday

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

VISHAL KISHORILAL JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

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

Section 68 but made the final addition u/s 69 without providing the opportunity to the appellant to respond, violating natural justice. 4. The id CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,43

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 should be quashed. 5. Further, Ld AO submitted to our attention the gist of the Assessee’s submission, the same are extracted here below: GIST OF ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION IN RESPECT OF PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 680F THE ACT The above named assessee most respectfully submits as under: 1. That the assessee is agriculturist, having no such taxable income

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

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

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

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

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

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

43,50,000. In other words, such addition shall be subject to normal rate of taxation and need not be governed by the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, ground no.3, raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 21. Ground no.4, relates to denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act. We have heard the rival