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

68,000, was made on account of alleged commission income. A survey action under section 133A of the Act was also carried out at the official premises of assessee i.e., M/s. SNJ & Associates, (a Partnership Firm in which Shri Sanjay Jain, who is a Chartered Accountant, is also a Partner) situated at 1st Floor, Mangalam Icon, Ramnagar Square, Nagpur

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

68,000, was made on account of alleged commission income. A survey action under section 133A of the Act was also carried out at the official premises of assessee i.e., M/s. SNJ & Associates, (a Partnership Firm in which Shri Sanjay Jain, who is a Chartered Accountant, is also a Partner) situated at 1st Floor, Mangalam Icon, Ramnagar Square, Nagpur

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

68,000, was made on account of alleged commission income. A survey action under section 133A of the Act was also carried out at the official premises of assessee i.e., M/s. SNJ & Associates, (a Partnership Firm in which Shri Sanjay Jain, who is a Chartered Accountant, is also a Partner) situated at 1st Floor, Mangalam Icon, Ramnagar Square, Nagpur

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

68,000, was made on account of alleged commission income. A survey action under section 133A of the Act was also carried out at the official premises of assessee i.e., M/s. SNJ & Associates, (a Partnership Firm in which Shri Sanjay Jain, who is a Chartered Accountant, is also a Partner) situated at 1st Floor, Mangalam Icon, Ramnagar Square, Nagpur

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

68,000, was made on account of alleged commission income. A survey action under section 133A of the Act was also carried out at the official premises of assessee i.e., M/s. SNJ & Associates, (a Partnership Firm in which Shri Sanjay Jain, who is a Chartered Accountant, is also a Partner) situated at 1st Floor, Mangalam Icon, Ramnagar Square, Nagpur

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

section 68 only sets up a presumption against the assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of account of the assessee. It cannot but be again said that the presumption is rebuttable. In refuting the presumption raised, the initial burden is on the assessee. This burden, which is placed on the assessee, shifts as soon

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

section 68 on sale of shares. The extract of aforesaid judgement has been reproduced in this order at Para–11. In the judgement at Para–15, the 18 Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has concluded that decision relied upon by the counsel is distinguishable on facts. In view of above factual position, there remains no adversity in respect

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.

68 as unexplained investment, therefore addition confirmed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur erred in not accepting the contention of the assessee and without going into to the merits of case confirmed the income U/s. 69A and charged tax U/s. 115BBE, therefore order passed is illegal, invalid

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

68,000, was made on account of alleged commission income. A survey action under section 133A of the Act was also carried out at the official premises of assessee i.e., M/s. SNJ & Associates, (a Partnership Firm in which Shri Sanjay Jain, who is a Chartered Accountant, is also a Partner) 5 Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain ITA no.53, to 59/Nag

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

section 68 on sale of shares. The extract of aforesaid judgement has been reproduced in this order at Para–11. In the judgement at Para–15, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has concluded that decision relied upon by the counsel is distinguishable on facts. In view of above factual position, there remains no adversity in respect to such

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

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

87) under section 143(3) and only ` 10,475 was added under section 14A. Thus, when the financial affairs of the investor has been accepted without demur, it underscores the satisfaction of ingredients of section 68

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 68 of the Act and interest paid on such credits have already been decided by us vide Para-20 to 25, of this order, wherein we have decided this issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue for the detailed reasoning given therein. Consistent with the view taken by us, similar additions are deleted in these

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 68 of the Act and interest paid on such credits have already been decided by us vide Para-20 to 25, of this order, wherein we have decided this issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue for the detailed reasoning given therein. Consistent with the view taken by us, similar additions are deleted in these

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 68 of the Act and interest paid on such credits have already been decided by us vide Para-20 to 25, of this order, wherein we have decided this issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue for the detailed reasoning given therein. Consistent with the view taken by us, similar additions are deleted in these

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 68 of the Act and interest paid on such credits have already been decided by us vide Para-20 to 25, of this order, wherein we have decided this issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue for the detailed reasoning given therein. Consistent with the view taken by us, similar additions are deleted in these

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 68 of the Act and interest paid on such credits have already been decided by us vide Para-20 to 25, of this order, wherein we have decided this issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue for the detailed reasoning given therein. Consistent with the view taken by us, similar additions are deleted in these