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

2), Mumbai, on 20/12/2016, determining total income at ` 8,65,21,840. In the assessment framed, addition has been made at ` 850 lakh under section 68

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

2)(v) in any other manner, in case provisions of section 68 could not be invoked. In this regard, we are further of the opinion that when a specific provision exist in law for particular thing, then, that thing is liable to be examined thereunder only and if that item cannot 8

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

8 to 13 of the assessment order. Similarly, the CIT(A)-3 vide second last line of the paragraph 4.1.2. given at page no. 7 of the order held that the impugned subsidy received by the Appellant is capital in nature. Thus, it can be seen that there is not dispute with respect to the fact that both the lower

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

8 to 13 of the assessment order. Similarly, the CIT(A)-3 vide second last line of the paragraph 4.1.2. given at page no. 7 of the order held that the impugned subsidy received by the Appellant is capital in nature. Thus, it can be seen that there is not dispute with respect to the fact that both the lower

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

2. Following grounds have been raised by the Revenue:– “a. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition by stating that there is no specific incriminating document linking investor to the appellant. However, in statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain on such company M/s. Viraj Mercantile

DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

8. We find that the ratio of above case also applies to the present case. As observed in the above case law, in this case also the submissions of the assessee‟s counsel is that the assessee society is maintaining operational funds and to meet any eventuality towards repayment of deposit the cooperative society is maintaining some liquidated funds

DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

8. We find that the ratio of above case also applies to the present case. As observed in the above case law, in this case also the submissions of the assessee‟s counsel is that the assessee society is maintaining operational funds and to meet any eventuality towards repayment of deposit the cooperative society is maintaining some liquidated funds

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68.In this context reference can be made to apex court decision in the case of Baladin Ran Vs Cit 71 ITR 427 (SC). 8. That the assessee places further reliance on the judgement in the case of Smt . Manshi Mahendra Pitkar Vs. ITO 1(2), Thane (2016) 73 taxmann.com 68

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

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

8,20,24,434/- 4 26/NAG/2020 2014-15 Department 143(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

8,20,24,434/- 4 26/NAG/2020 2014-15 Department 143(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

8,20,24,434/- 4 26/NAG/2020 2014-15 Department 143(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

8,20,24,434/- 4 26/NAG/2020 2014-15 Department 143(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

8,20,24,434/- 4 26/NAG/2020 2014-15 Department 143(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

8,20,24,434/- 4 26/NAG/2020 2014-15 Department 143(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

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

Section 153A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment which is not in the case of assessee. (4) On contrary

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

2)(a)(1). 42. Here itself, it would not be out of place to mention that status of "cooperative society" had been conferred on Regional Rural Banks, as the "appellant RRB" is, by virtue of section 22 read with section 32 of Regional Rural Bank Act 1976, and not by circular no. 319 dated

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

2)(a)(1). 42. Here itself, it would not be out of place to mention that status of "cooperative society" had been conferred on Regional Rural Banks, as the "appellant RRB" is, by virtue of section 22 read with section 32 of Regional Rural Bank Act 1976, and not by circular no. 319 dated