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

78:- "ITO treated certain cash credits shown to have been received by assessee from outside parties as unproved and added same to income of assessee under section 68

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

78:- "ITO treated certain cash credits shown to have been received by assessee from outside parties as unproved and added same to income of assessee under section 68

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

78:- "ITO treated certain cash credits shown to have been received by assessee from outside parties as unproved and added same to income of assessee under section 68

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

78:- "ITO treated certain cash credits shown to have been received by assessee from outside parties as unproved and added same to income of assessee under section 68

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

78:- "ITO treated certain cash credits shown to have been received by assessee from outside parties as unproved and added same to income of assessee under section 68

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

78:- "ITO treated certain cash credits shown to have been received by assessee from outside parties as unproved and added same to income of assessee under section 68

RAVINDRA MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

78 (SC) in which the assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the revenue that the said creditors were the income-tax assessees. Their index number was in the file of the revenue. The revenue, apart from issuing notices under section 131 at the instance of the assessee

ANKIT SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Ankit Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Biapt 4756 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 / 6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

78,300, and treated the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and charged income tax under section 115BBE of the Act. The learned Counsel submitted that though the provisions of section 69A of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case, but still the Department has charged income

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

78,983/- 8.3 The appellant submitted that it has through confirmation of accounts, bank statements and audited financial statements justified the transaction of granting of loans by the Lenders. The appellant has thus sufficiently proved the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the Lenders and has sufficiently discharged its onus cast upon it in light of provisions of 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

78,983/- 8.3 The appellant submitted that it has through confirmation of accounts, bank statements and audited financial statements justified the transaction of granting of loans by the Lenders. The appellant has thus sufficiently proved the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the Lenders and has sufficiently discharged its onus cast upon it in light of provisions of 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

78,983/- 8.3 The appellant submitted that it has through confirmation of accounts, bank statements and audited financial statements justified the transaction of granting of loans by the Lenders. The appellant has thus sufficiently proved the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the Lenders and has sufficiently discharged its onus cast upon it in light of provisions of 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

78,983/- 8.3 The appellant submitted that it has through confirmation of accounts, bank statements and audited financial statements justified the transaction of granting of loans by the Lenders. The appellant has thus sufficiently proved the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the Lenders and has sufficiently discharged its onus cast upon it in light of provisions of 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

78,983/- 8.3 The appellant submitted that it has through confirmation of accounts, bank statements and audited financial statements justified the transaction of granting of loans by the Lenders. The appellant has thus sufficiently proved the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the Lenders and has sufficiently discharged its onus cast upon it in light of provisions of 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

78,983/- 8.3 The appellant submitted that it has through confirmation of accounts, bank statements and audited financial statements justified the transaction of granting of loans by the Lenders. The appellant has thus sufficiently proved the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the Lenders and has sufficiently discharged its onus cast upon it in light of provisions of section 68

NIKITA SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ms. Nikita Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Borpt 4644 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /62022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

68 of the Act. I have carefully considered the written submissions of the appellant’s AR, the assessment order and the material available on record. The facts of the case are that Locker no.305, in HU Volt, HU Tower Maskasath, Itwari, Nagpur, was in the name of the appellant. Search operation was conducted at this locker on 22.11.2018, and cash

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

68 Back Rajesh A/404 3847500 2000000 1849500 Annex– 2016–17 Modak (B–1–20) Shri 01.03.2017 63 Mahesh J. 305 2945000 1500000 1445000 Annex– 2016–17 Ramdohkar (B–1–24) Shri 16.12.2016 60 Rajendra A/703 3951000 3500000 451000 Annex– 2016–17 Singh (B–1–27) Total F.Y. 2016–17 37,45,500 F.Y. 2017–18 4,78

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

78:- "ITO treated certain cash credits shown to have been received by assessee from outside parties as unproved and added same to income of assessee under section 68

CHANDRAKUMAR MADHUSUDANJI JAJODIA,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

68 – 78) (76, 77) iii) (2003) 259 ITR 0019 (SC) GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. ( 79 – 81) (81) F) W/s before CIT(A) (P- 1 to 9). In appellate order CIT(A) has not considered/given one single reason as to why submission of assessee are not being accepted. Dismissing of appeal is arbitrary. Ground No.3: Assessment framed