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

68 i.e., identity; creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions stand established as confirmation letter from the said LRPL has been filed by the appellant. Considering the above totality of facts the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 6174880/- is hereby deleted.” The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), is in further appeal before

DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

50,000/- (if that was a consumer co-operative society) and Rs.50,000/- in any other case. 4. As per Sec. 80P(2)(d), in respect of any income by way of interest or dividend derived by the co-operative society, from its investments, with any other co-operative society, the whole such income. 5. As per Sec. 80P(2

DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

50,000/- (if that was a consumer co-operative society) and Rs.50,000/- in any other case. 4. As per Sec. 80P(2)(d), in respect of any income by way of interest or dividend derived by the co-operative society, from its investments, with any other co-operative society, the whole such income. 5. As per Sec. 80P(2

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

50,000/- u/s 68 in the case of the appellant is deleted. The grounds of appeal are allowed. 5.0 In the result, the appeal is allowed.” M/s. Axykno Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.47/Nag./2019 7. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Before us, during the course

AXYKNO CAPITAL SERVICES LTD,,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, NAGPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

50,00,000 respectively under section 68 of the Act. i. The said additions were confirmed by the CIT (Appeals). The Ld. AR during the course of hearing strongly opposed the actions of the AO and challenged the reopening of the assessment under section 147 as bad in law and further challenged the additions made on merits

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

50,000/- is considered as un explained income of the appellant which has been correctly taxed xx] s. 68 of The Income Tax Act 1961. 6. From above order of Learned Commissioner of Income TAX (Appeals)-l Nagpur it is crystal clear that the addition was confirmed u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. In this respect

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

2. CIT V/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (ITS No.972 of 2009) 6.3 In the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Dwarakadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. are held as under: "In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Thought in section 68 of the 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

2. CIT V/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (ITS No.972 of 2009) 6.3 In the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Dwarakadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. are held as under: "In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Thought in section 68 of the 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

2. CIT V/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (ITS No.972 of 2009) 6.3 In the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Dwarakadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. are held as under: "In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Thought in section 68 of the 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

2. CIT V/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (ITS No.972 of 2009) 6.3 In the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Dwarakadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. are held as under: "In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Thought in section 68 of the 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

2. CIT V/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (ITS No.972 of 2009) 6.3 In the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Dwarakadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. are held as under: "In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Thought in section 68 of the 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

2. CIT V/s Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. (Delhi High Court) (ITS No.972 of 2009) 6.3 In the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V/s Dwarakadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd. are held as under: "In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Thought in section 68 of the Income

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

50,81,436, by making addition of ` 97,06,79,200, as disallowance under the provisions for bad and doubtful debt under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, ` 17,39,54,837, as addition on account of interest accrued but not due on Government and other securities, ` 2,68

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

50,81,436, by making addition of ` 97,06,79,200, as disallowance under the provisions for bad and doubtful debt under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, ` 17,39,54,837, as addition on account of interest accrued but not due on Government and other securities, ` 2,68

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

Section 153A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment which is not in the case of assessee. (4) On contrary

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

Section 153A only on the basis of some\nincriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of\ndocuments or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of\nsearch which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in\nthe course of original assessment which is not in the case of assessee

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

2. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills vs CIT(paper book page no.30) it was observed that Section 69A deals with unexplained money of which the assessee is found to be the owner. The material difference between sections 68 and 69A is that section 68 does not require that

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