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 – Rs. 6 crores total – Unsecured loans from (i) Anubhav Vinimay – Rs.2,00,00,000/- (ii

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 – Rs. 6 crores total – Unsecured loans from (i) Anubhav Vinimay – Rs.2,00,00,000/- (ii

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 – Rs. 6 crores total – Unsecured loans from (i) Anubhav Vinimay – Rs.2,00,00,000/- (ii

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 – Rs. 6 crores total – Unsecured loans from (i) Anubhav Vinimay – Rs.2,00,00,000/- (ii

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 – Rs. 6 crores total – Unsecured loans from (i) Anubhav Vinimay – Rs.2,00,00,000/- (ii

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 – Rs. 6 crores total – Unsecured loans from (i) Anubhav Vinimay – Rs.2,00,00,000/- (ii

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) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO directed the assessee to substantiate 17 ITA207/NAG/2017 ITO, WARD 5(3), JAIPUR VS 21st CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. NAGAPUR share premium of Rs.240/- per share (with face value of Rs.10/- per share and share premium of Rs.240/- per share) charged by the assessee company. The AO also

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

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

6 to 55 appearing in Chapter II. Section 5, with which Chapter II opens, expressly provides that evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and the facts declared relevant in the aforesaid section, and of no others. Section 34 of the Act reads

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) The AO in the assessment order has alleged that the assessee has not been able to prove the creditworthiness of the loan creditors and genuineness of the transaction. Further the explanation offered is not found satisfactory by the AO. Your kind attention is invited to the ITR Acknowledgement and Financialn Statement of the SVPL from whom funds are received

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

3) The AO in the assessment order has alleged that the assessee has not been able to prove the creditworthiness of the loan creditors and genuineness of the transaction. Further the explanation offered is not found satisfactory by the AO. Your kind attention is invited to the ITR Acknowledgement and Financialn Statement of the SVPL from whom funds are received

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

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

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

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

ii. AY 2011-12 – Rs. 50,00,000/- from Nakshtra Business Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s Hema Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.) d. The assessments of the Appellant were reopened under section 147 of the Act primarily for the reason that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment on the ground that the Appellant is a 4 ITA 178/NAG

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

ii). 12. Whenever the exemption under section 11 is to be denied the income of the trust is to be computed as per the specific provisions of section 164(2) provided in the statute, which are reproduced below for ready reference:– ―164(2) In the case of relevant income which is derived from property held under trust wholly

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2 (1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

ii). 12. Whenever the exemption under section 11 is to be denied the income of the trust is to be computed as per the specific provisions of section 164(2) provided in the statute, which are reproduced below for ready reference:– ―164(2) In the case of relevant income which is derived from property held under trust wholly

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

ii). 12. Whenever the exemption under section 11 is to be denied the income of the trust is to be computed as per the specific provisions of section 164(2) provided in the statute, which are reproduced below for ready reference:– ―164(2) In the case of relevant income which is derived from property held under trust wholly