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

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

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

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

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

68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Original return of 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

68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Original return of 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

68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Original return of 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

68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Original return of 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

68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Original return of 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

68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Original return of income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. METROCITY HOMES, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

45,500, being unexplained money under section 69A of the Act; v) Ground no.5, – Addition made of ` 71,93,600, being unexplained money under section 69A of the Act; vi) Ground no.6, – Addition made of ` 22,50,000 being unexplained money under section 69A of the Act; vii) Ground no.7, – Addition made of ` 26,00,000, being

ANKIT SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Ankit Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Biapt 4756 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 / 6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") for the assessment year 2018-19. The present appeal has been filed on the following grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur erred in confirming addition, therefore order passed is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 2 ITA153/NAG/2021 Ankit Shankarlal Tanwani vs ACIT

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

ASSISTATN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT . SUNITA SURESH KOTHARI , NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Chandana Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Ambpk 2497 G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Smita Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Alnpk 1191 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Sunita Suresh Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Affpk 2282 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Seema Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Alnpk 1190 P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Karan Kothari Aabhushan

section 68 was found not applicable due to the extensive explanation provided by the assessee company. The Hon'ble ITAT has also rejected the idea that the fact that the investor company had numerous transactions meant there was no creditworthiness, by clearly holding that this company was an NBFC and its only business activity was to provide financing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S KARAN KOTHARI AABHUSHAN PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Chandana Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Ambpk 2497 G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Smita Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Alnpk 1191 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Sunita Suresh Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Affpk 2282 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Seema Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Alnpk 1190 P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Karan Kothari Aabhushan

section 68 was found not applicable due to the extensive explanation provided by the assessee company. The Hon'ble ITAT has also rejected the idea that the fact that the investor company had numerous transactions meant there was no creditworthiness, by clearly holding that this company was an NBFC and its only business activity was to provide financing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. SMITA KOTHARI , NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Chandana Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Ambpk 2497 G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Smita Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Alnpk 1191 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Sunita Suresh Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Affpk 2282 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Seema Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Alnpk 1190 P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Karan Kothari Aabhushan

section 68 was found not applicable due to the extensive explanation provided by the assessee company. The Hon'ble ITAT has also rejected the idea that the fact that the investor company had numerous transactions meant there was no creditworthiness, by clearly holding that this company was an NBFC and its only business activity was to provide financing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT . SEEMA KOTHARI , NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Chandana Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Ambpk 2497 G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Smita Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Alnpk 1191 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Sunita Suresh Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Affpk 2282 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Seema Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Alnpk 1190 P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Karan Kothari Aabhushan

section 68 was found not applicable due to the extensive explanation provided by the assessee company. The Hon'ble ITAT has also rejected the idea that the fact that the investor company had numerous transactions meant there was no creditworthiness, by clearly holding that this company was an NBFC and its only business activity was to provide financing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CRICLE -2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. CHANDANA KOTHARI , NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Chandana Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Ambpk 2497 G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Smita Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Alnpk 1191 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Sunita Suresh Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Affpk 2282 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C.I.T., Vs. Smt. Seema Kothari, Central Circle-2(2), Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Nagpur. Itwari, Nagpur-440002. Pan No.: Alnpk 1190 P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2015-16 A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Karan Kothari Aabhushan

section 68 was found not applicable due to the extensive explanation provided by the assessee company. The Hon'ble ITAT has also rejected the idea that the fact that the investor company had numerous transactions meant there was no creditworthiness, by clearly holding that this company was an NBFC and its only business activity was to provide financing