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

section 68 has held that if (a) the assessee has furnished the Name, Address, PAN no and Share Application Form to prove that the shares were allotted to the applicants and (b) the bank statement show that money was received through banking channels and there were no immediate withdrawals to suggest that the share application amounts have been returned

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

section 68 has held that if (a) the assessee has furnished the Name, Address, PAN no and Share Application Form to prove that the shares were allotted to the applicants and (b) the bank statement show that money was received through banking channels and there were no immediate withdrawals to suggest that the share application amounts have been returned

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

section 68 has held that if (a) the assessee has furnished the Name, Address, PAN no and Share Application Form to prove that the shares were allotted to the applicants and (b) the bank statement show that money was received through banking channels and there were no immediate withdrawals to suggest that the share application amounts have been returned

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

section 68 has held that if (a) the assessee has furnished the Name, Address, PAN no and Share Application Form to prove that the shares were allotted to the applicants and (b) the bank statement show that money was received through banking channels and there were no immediate withdrawals to suggest that the share application amounts have been returned

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

801 (SC). The aforesaid decision has also been considered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Smt. Jamnadevi Agrawal, reported as 328 ITR 656 (Bom.) while considering provisions of section 68

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

801 (SC). The aforesaid decision has also been considered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Smt. Jamnadevi Agrawal, reported as 328 ITR 656 (Bom.) while considering provisions of section 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTAL CIRCLE -2(2) , NAGPUR vs. SHRI NARENDRA MAGANMAL KOTHARI , NAGPUR

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

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

Section 68. vii. On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,95,00,876/- made by the AO treating the unsecured loan received by the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

Section 68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of Stock Exchange. The ITAT therefore

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

Section 68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of Stock Exchange. The ITAT therefore

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

Section 68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of Stock Exchange. The ITAT therefore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S. FUELCO COAL INDIA LTD., NAGPUR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

801] and held that facts and circumstances of the impugned case are similar to those covered by the above mentioned judicial decisions. The AO has invoked the proviso to section 68

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

68. Similarly, there is no basis or evidence on record for making addition of unexplained commission on expenditure. The addition of unexplained commission payment is solely based on assumption by AO. The ld. AR submits that assessee has no role in alleged manipulation of scrip of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. or Premier Capital Services Ltd. In the order of SEBI

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

801). 3 Shri Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani ITA no.410/Nag./2019 A.Y. 2014–15 xiii) On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the transaction through banking channel is not always genuine as held by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in P. Mohan Kala & Others (291 ITR 278) xiv) On the facts

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

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

801). xiii) On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the transaction through banking channel is not always genuine as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Mohan Kala & Others (291 ITR 278) xiv) On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed

SHARDASHREE ISPAT LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 68 unexplained cash credits addition of Rs.45.00 lakhs involving M/s. Muskan Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Shublabh Prints Pvt. 2 Shardashree Ispat Limited Ltd., and Koel Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. for sums of Rs.5.00 lakhs in former and Rs.20.00 lakhs in latter twin instances; respectively. The asessee’s stand all along is that the impugned sums have been routed through banking

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

801-CALCUTTA HIGH COURT- The High Court held that lack of enquiry, where enquiry is necessary, can be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue so as to justify revisional jurisdiction. It was for non inquiry, the validity of action under Section 263 was held justified in a case of non verification of share capital contribution when

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. SMT DISHA DEVEN MALVIYA , NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

section as such. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition as held to be made U/s 69 makes the entire addition made by the AO illegal and liable to be deleted as per law. 3. The addition made by the AO, if held to be made U/s 68

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. SMT DISHA DEVEN MALVIYA L/H OF LATE SHRI DEVEN MALVIYA , NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

section as such. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition as held to be made U/s 69 makes the entire addition made by the AO illegal and liable to be deleted as per law. 3. The addition made by the AO, if held to be made U/s 68