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

69C – 153A Dt. Investment based 22.12.2017 on DVO Report Amount Rs. 6,38,21,488/- 2. Section 68 – Rs. 6 crores

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

69C – 153A Dt. Investment based 22.12.2017 on DVO Report Amount Rs. 6,38,21,488/- 2. Section 68 – Rs. 6 crores

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

69C – 153A Dt. Investment based 22.12.2017 on DVO Report Amount Rs. 6,38,21,488/- 2. Section 68 – Rs. 6 crores

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

69C – 153A Dt. Investment based 22.12.2017 on DVO Report Amount Rs. 6,38,21,488/- 2. Section 68 – Rs. 6 crores

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. SHIKHA INDRAKUMAR AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

68 of the Act in respect to sale proceeds of shares. Ld. AO also made addition of Rs.6,84,850/- as reasonable 3 rate of 5% of amount as commission paid not shown in books of account by invoking the provisions of section 69C

DCIT-CC-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. INDRAKUMAR GHISULAL AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

68 of the Act 1961 and added to total income of the assessee. Ld. AO also made addition of Rs.4,12,466/- as 3% of sale consideration as unexplained expenditure by invoking the provisions of section 69C

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

69C of the Act. It was submitted that the burden of proof had not been discharged by the Revenue by leading any material, what so ever, and thus, the addition so made needed to be deleted. The learned Counsel for the assessee in support of his arguments 8. placed reliance on the series of case laws which are as follows

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. RADHIKA METALS AND MINERALS, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 69C of the Act.\n4.\nOn appeal, the learned CIT(A), considering the entire submissions made\nby the assessee, deleted the additions of ₹ 3,14,08,070 and ₹ 85,55,612\nrespectively made by the Assessing Officer. The relevant findings of the order\npassed by the learned CIT(A) covering the above two additions are extracted\nbelow

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 of I.T. Act 1961 referring to various judgements and case laws and concluded that sale proceeds of shares is liable to be assessed as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of I.T. Act 1961. Assessing Officer accordingly made addition at Rs.5,73,42,518/- being sale proceeds of shares to the income declared. 4 ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

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

sections": [ "69A", "69C", "132", "139(1)", "143(3)", "153C", "292C", "65B", "68" ], "issues": "Whether additions made based on loose

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon’Ble Accountant, Member Atul Manoharrao Yamsanwar V. Acit – Central Circle – 2(1) Plot No. 33, Manoharrao Room No. 312, 3Rd Floor Khare Town, Dharampeth Aayakar Bhavan, Telangkhedi Road Nagpur - 440010 Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440001 Pan – Aaepy4543Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

69C of the Act. With regard to the addition of Rs. 24,21,318/- made under section 69A of the Act as unexplained income, Assessee submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) as under: - “23. It is humbly stated that the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate and hiring and firing of employee is an internal trait

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AKOLA, NAGPUR vs. RBSD AND FN DAS, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

section of Act. In this ground there are two different additions are made: one is addition towards opening sundry creditors and second one is regarding addition towards credits in sundry creditors is discussed as below: The AO during the assessment proceeding noticed that there are opening credit balances in accounts of 12 Sundry creditors totalling

SHRI VISHWAKARAMA JEWELLERS ,AKOLA vs. DCIT AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B & 69C is not apparent from the impugned order. Merely stating that excess cash is clearly

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. MAKARAND MADHUSUDAN JOSHI, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

69C 3. ` 7,70,000 On account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 3 Makarand Madhusudan Joshi ITA no.382/Nag./2023 4. Insofar as addition of ` 93,000, on account of unexplained money under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(2), NAGPUR vs. AJAY VISHANDAS KAMNANI, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

69C of the IT Act, 1961. I have considered the submission of the appellant I am of the view that one has been estimated by the AO rejecting the books of accounts the source of expenditure relating to such turnover on which income have been offer stands explain. The addition made on account of coupons why treating the same

RAJESH SARDA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Rajesh Sarda, Acit, Central Circle – 2(2), Nagpur 14, Daga Lay–Out, Ambazari Road, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440033. Maharashtra – 440001. [Pan: Ahaps4925M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

section 68 and 69C of the 1. T. Act, 1961 respectively. The addition is arbitrary, unjustified and deserves to be deleted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. DEEPAK SURESH GADGE, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 69C of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and filed his submissions. After considering the submissions of the Assessee, Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the Assessee. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us by raising

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. DEEPAK SURESH GADGE, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 69C of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and filed his submissions. After considering the submissions of the Assessee, Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the Assessee. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us by raising