TAJSHREE AUTOWHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

56(2) and section 68 are in the nature of anti-abuse measures aimed at preventing the malafide transactions

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

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

56 Taxmann.com 18. e. Any other ground which may be taken with the permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. Facts in Brief:– In the present case, the assessee is a Limited Company engaged in the activity of consulting in sectors like infrastructure, energy and natural resources, Railways etc., rendering host of specialised services. The assessee filed its original return

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 which are jointly held along with spouse of the assessee and in the matter of rejecting the explanation that said deposits are made by other co holder of the bank account out of sale proceeds of the agriculture land and in the matter of arbitrarily rejecting the evidences submitted by assessee being unregistered agreement to sale holding

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 69 has held that in creating the legal fiction the phraseology employs the word \"may\" and not \"shall\". Thus the unsatisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. SHRI VINOD BALBHADRA GOENKA,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit Vs. Shri Vinod Balbhadra Goenka Circle-4 247, Nandanvan Layout Nagpur Nagpur Pan No.:Aanpg 6841 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal By Revenue Against Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Nagpur Dated 30/03/2017 In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 4/198/16-17 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue In This Appeal Are As Under:

section 68 was not proper.” These judgements make it amply clear that the receipts that have already been shown by the assessee as income in the books of accounts/original returns and returns filed u/s 153A also cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits u/s 68. In the circumstances of the case and in view of aforecited judgements. I hold

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

68 as unamended during AY 2012-13 and as interpreted by various judicial precedents would be applicable in the case of the assessee. Similarly, provisions of section 56

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

68 as unamended during AY 2012-13 and as interpreted by various judicial precedents would be applicable in the case of the assessee. Similarly, provisions of section 56

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

68 as unamended during AY 2012-13 and as interpreted by various judicial precedents would be applicable in the case of the assessee. Similarly, provisions of section 56

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

56(1)-Share premium realized from issue of shares is of capital in nature and forms part of share capital of company and therefore cannot be taxed as a Revenue receipt-As per Section 68

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

56. Considering facts and circumstances of this case and by following ratios of case laws discussed above, we are of the considered view that the said Joan amount could not be added under the first proviso to Section 68

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

56. Considering facts and circumstances of this case and by following ratios of case laws discussed above, we are of the considered view that the said Joan amount could not be added under the first proviso to Section 68

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

56. Considering facts and circumstances of this case and by following ratios of case laws discussed above, we are of the considered view that the said Joan amount could not be added under the first proviso to Section 68

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

56. Considering facts and circumstances of this case and by following ratios of case laws discussed above, we are of the considered view that the said Joan amount could not be added under the first proviso to Section 68

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

56. Considering facts and circumstances of this case and by following ratios of case laws discussed above, we are of the considered view that the said Joan amount could not be added under the first proviso to Section 68

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

56(1)-Share premium realized from issue of shares is of capital in nature and forms part of share capital of company and therefore cannot be taxed as a Revenue receipt-As per Section 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTAL CIRCLE -2(2) , NAGPUR vs. SHRI NARENDRA MAGANMAL KOTHARI , NAGPUR

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

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

56. Considering facts and circumstances of this case and by following ratios of case laws discussed above, we are of the considered view that the said Joan amount could not be added under the first proviso to Section 68

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

68, which is ignored by the Addl.CIT while granting such mechanical approval. He has not even cared that in the absence of required satisfaction note“ for each year separately, entire assessment under section 153C would be vitiated. 60. In the present case before us, we noted that the Addl.CIT did not mention anything in the approval order passed under