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

56, 57, 58, 61):- 38. We have heard the contentions, put forth by the rival parties, perused the Paper Books in three volumes as had been uploaded by the appellant RRB. The central issue involved in all these appeals is whether 'appellant RRB is entitled to claim exemption under section

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

1,15,260. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee acquired a residential flat at Adarsh Co–operative Housing Society and that the major source of payment with regard to the said investment was borrowings from one M/s. Landscaper Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (LRPL) and from his son. The Assessing Officer further noted that the total payment made by the assessee

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

68 and 56(2)(viib) being the deeming provisions were created to achieve a particular objective as per the legislature intent of introducing such provisions, which was only to be applied to check and tackle the circulation of unaccounted money. And hence the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of I.T. Act and Rule 11UA of I. T. rules

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

68 taxmann.com 298/239 Taxman 417/384 ITR 490 (Ker.), which relied on the aforesaid provision to decline exemption insofar as a similar situation in which no return was filed. In such circumstance, the failure to file a return under Section 139; even when a notice was issued under Section 142(1), is not a technical defect. We also

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

68 taxmann.com 298/239 Taxman 417/384 ITR 490 (Ker.), which relied on the aforesaid provision to decline exemption insofar as a similar situation in which no return was filed. In such circumstance, the failure to file a return under Section 139; even when a notice was issued under Section 142(1), is not a technical defect. We also

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

68 taxmann.com 298/239 Taxman 417/384 ITR 490 (Ker.), which relied on the aforesaid provision to decline exemption insofar as a similar situation in which no return was filed. In such circumstance, the failure to file a return under Section 139; even when a notice was issued under Section 142(1), is not a technical defect. We also

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

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

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

1) That the order of the learned Dy./Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A is bad in law and wrong on facts and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. (2) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition made

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