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

3) r.w.s. Abated 1.Sec.69C – 153A Dt. Investment based 22.12.2017 on DVO Report Amount Rs. 6,38,21,488/- 2. Section 68

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

3) r.w.s. Abated 1.Sec.69C – 153A Dt. Investment based 22.12.2017 on DVO Report Amount Rs. 6,38,21,488/- 2. Section 68

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

3) r.w.s. Abated 1.Sec.69C – 153A Dt. Investment based 22.12.2017 on DVO Report Amount Rs. 6,38,21,488/- 2. Section 68

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

3) r.w.s. Abated 1.Sec.69C – 153A Dt. Investment based 22.12.2017 on DVO Report Amount Rs. 6,38,21,488/- 2. Section 68

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

3) r.w.s. Abated 1.Sec.69C – 153A Dt. Investment based 22.12.2017 on DVO Report Amount Rs. 6,38,21,488/- 2. Section 68

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

3) r.w.s. Abated 1.Sec.69C – 153A Dt. Investment based 22.12.2017 on DVO Report Amount Rs. 6,38,21,488/- 2. Section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3),, NAGPUR vs. M/S. 21ST CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

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

6) notice. 1.3 The sanctity and veracity of the documents as well as the assessee’s submissions were accepted by the AO and no addition is made under section 68 to 69D. The learned AO made addition under the head income from other sources. 1.4 During the assessment proceedings, the AO directed assessee to substantiate share premium

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

6, relates to the addition of ₹ 15 lakh on account of unsecured loan under section 68. The brief facts, as brought out by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order are that the assessee obtained loan of ₹ 15 lakh from M/s. Sakambhari Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. The assessee filed explanation and documents like confirmation, Bank Account, Balance Sheet, Ledger Account

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

6, relates to the addition of ₹ 15 lakh on account of unsecured loan under section 68. The brief facts, as brought out by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order are that the assessee obtained loan of ₹ 15 lakh from M/s. Sakambhari Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. The assessee filed explanation and documents like confirmation, Bank Account, Balance Sheet, Ledger Account

UMESH SADASHIV THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

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

6 Ν.Α. VISHWAS CHAKNALWAR (PAN: ABDPC0828J) M/S A V REALITIES (PAN: ABFFA9554M) 2. With respect to the abovementioned cases, it is submitted that during the previous hearing on 18/02/2025, this office had filed written submission wherein confidential letters having F.No. Addl CIT-CR-2/Yamsanwar Gr./AMY/2021-22 dated 16/07/2021 written by the then Addl.CIT, Central Range-2, Ngp to Addl

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

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 as well. 2. The Ld. DR relied

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

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

6 Ν.Α. VISHWAS CHAKNALWAR (PAN: ABDPC0828J) M/S A V REALITIES (PAN: ABFFA9554M) 2. With respect to the abovementioned cases, it is submitted that during the previous hearing on 18/02/2025, this office had filed written submission wherein confidential letters having F.No. Addl CIT-CR-2/Yamsanwar Gr./AMY/2021-22 dated 16/07/2021 written by the then Addl.CIT, Central Range-2, Ngp to Addl

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

UMESH SADASHIV THAKRE ,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

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

3) r/w section 153A dated 26/12/2018, was passed assessing the total income at ₹ 83,04,726. The addition of 72,68,000, was made on account of alleged commission income. A survey action under section 133A of the Act was also carried out at the official premises of assessee i.e., M/s. SNJ & Associates, (a Partnership Firm in which

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the IT Act. Thus, respectfully following the above legal preposition, we are of the considered view that the addition made by Ld AO u/s 68 of the Act is liable to be deleted and order of Ld CIT(A) is set aside. Since, the addition u/s 68 is deleted on the legal ground; no further adjudication

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

3) r/w section 153A dated 26/12/2018, was passed assessing the total income at ₹ 83,04,726. The addition of 72,68,000, was made on account of alleged commission income. A survey action under section 133A of the Act was also carried out at the official premises of assessee i.e., M/s. SNJ & Associates, (a Partnership Firm in which

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

3) r/w section 153A dated 26/12/2018, was passed assessing the total income at ₹ 83,04,726. The addition of 72,68,000, was made on account of alleged commission income. A survey action under section 133A of the Act was also carried out at the official premises of assessee i.e., M/s. SNJ & Associates, (a Partnership Firm in which