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

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

5,25,45,132/- 79,59,132/- 2011-12 2012-13 7,75,80,000/- 9,14,28,953/- 1,38,48,953/- 2-12-13 2013-14 45,94,90,000/- 54,15,14,434/- 8,20,24,434/- ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023

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

5,25,45,132/- 79,59,132/- 2011-12 2012-13 7,75,80,000/- 9,14,28,953/- 1,38,48,953/- 2-12-13 2013-14 45,94,90,000/- 54,15,14,434/- 8,20,24,434/- ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023

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

5,25,45,132/- 79,59,132/- 2011-12 2012-13 7,75,80,000/- 9,14,28,953/- 1,38,48,953/- 2-12-13 2013-14 45,94,90,000/- 54,15,14,434/- 8,20,24,434/- ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023

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

5,25,45,132/- 79,59,132/- 2011-12 2012-13 7,75,80,000/- 9,14,28,953/- 1,38,48,953/- 2-12-13 2013-14 45,94,90,000/- 54,15,14,434/- 8,20,24,434/- ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023

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

5,25,45,132/- 79,59,132/- 2011-12 2012-13 7,75,80,000/- 9,14,28,953/- 1,38,48,953/- 2-12-13 2013-14 45,94,90,000/- 54,15,14,434/- 8,20,24,434/- ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023

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

5,25,45,132/- 79,59,132/- 2011-12 2012-13 7,75,80,000/- 9,14,28,953/- 1,38,48,953/- 2-12-13 2013-14 45,94,90,000/- 54,15,14,434/- 8,20,24,434/- ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023

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.

45,300/- is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 3. On the fact and circumstances learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur ought to have accepted returned income and cash in hand shown by the assessee in the regular return of income and rejecting the contention of the assessee and treated the same as unexplained money

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

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 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

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

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

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

section 131 of the Act may be issued to Shri Shirish Chandrakant Shah, and opportunity to cross–examine may be granted. The Assessing Officer, for the reasons discussed in Para-4 and 5 of the assessment order, made the addition of ` 6,58,12,500 to the total income of the assessee. While framing the assessment order, the Assessing

I.T.O. WARD -3(5), NAGPUR vs. SHRI MUKUNDRAO GOVINDRAO MANKAR, KATOL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

45,000 after giving a rebate of Rs. 25,000 to the income of the assessee as income chargeable to tax under section 56(2)(v).In the said set of facts, it has been held as under: We are, however, unable to find any material being brought on record by the revenue to support these findings, hence

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. VISHNU GILTS PVT.LT, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

45 are, defined to be income. The amounts received on issue of share capital including the premium is undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium have been made taxable by a legal fiction under section 56(2)(viib) and the same is enumerated as income in section 2(24)(xvi)." ii. CBDT vide its Instruction No. 2/2015 dated 29/01/2015

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, NAGPUR vs. M/S RAGHAV FINVEST PVT LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

45 are, defined to be income. The amounts received on issue of share capital including the premium is undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium have been made taxable by a legal fiction under section 56(2)(viib) and the same is enumerated as income in section 2(24)(xvi)." ii. CBDT vide its Instruction No. 2/2015 dated 29/01/2015

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. M/S NIHAL GITS PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

45 are, defined to be income. The amounts received on issue of share capital including the premium is undoubtedly on capital account. Share premium have been made taxable by a legal fiction under section 56(2)(viib) and the same is enumerated as income in section 2(24)(xvi)." ii. CBDT vide its Instruction No. 2/2015 dated 29/01/2015