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

section 68 of the Act. 9 ITA 178/NAG/ 2017 AXYKNO CAPITAL SERVICES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE- 1,NAGPUR 14. Coming

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3),, NAGPUR vs. M/S. 21ST CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Section 68 of the Act before the Tribunal. 9(b) It is further pertinent to note that the definition

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 as the assessee has adduced false evidence by forging and fabricating in the bank statement, which is not fact of the present case hence the ratio decided does not applies in the instant case. Other case laws of Hon’ble assessee. Therefore contentions of the revenue are not acceptable. 9

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 68 of the Act is unjustified and unsustainable.In this case, Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v/s Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 764 (Gujarat). their Lordships have held as follows:- \"9

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

section 68 of the Act\nis unjustified and unsustainable.In this case, Principal Commissioner of\nIncome-tax v/s Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 764\n(Gujarat). their Lordships have held as follows:-\n\"9

THE DY. C.I.T., CENTRAL CIR. 2(1),, NAGPUR vs. M/S MAHAVIR COAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

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

section 68 of the Act 1961 is unjustified and unsustainable. 9. In assessee’s case, the learned CIT(A) has considered

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 of the Act. We are also fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Gaurav Triyugi Singh v/s ITO, [2020] 423 ITR 531 (Bom.), wherein on similar issue the Hon’ble Court has observed as under:– “9

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

section 68 of the Act\nis unjustified and unsustainable.In this case, Principal Commissioner of\nIncome-tax v/s Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 764\n(Gujarat). their Lordships have held as follows:-\n\"9

THE DY. C.I.T., CENTRAL CIR. 2(1),, NAGPUR vs. M/S MAHAVIR COAL RESOURCES PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

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

9 M/s. Mahavir Coal Resources Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year – 2011–12 which discredits the legal evidence on record to explain the cash credit. Even in search conducted no incriminating evidence is found in respect to contribution of share capital contribution. On the above undisputed factual position, the addition in respect to share capital contribution under 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 68 of the Act\nis unjustified and unsustainable.In this case, Principal Commissioner of\nIncome-tax v/s Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 764\n(Gujarat). their Lordships have held as follows:-\n\"9

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

section 68 of the Act\nis unjustified and unsustainable.In this case, Principal Commissioner of\nIncome-tax v/s Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 764\n(Gujarat). their Lordships have held as follows:-\n\"9

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

section 68 of the Act\nis unjustified and unsustainable.In this case, Principal Commissioner of\nIncome-tax v/s Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 764\n(Gujarat). their Lordships have held as follows:-\n\"9

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 was not proper.” These judgements make it amply clear that the receipts that have already been shown by the assessee as income in the books of accounts/original returns and returns filed u/s 153A also cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits u/s 68. In the circumstances of the case and in view of aforecited judgements. I hold

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

9. Moreover, even if assume that the closing stock i.e. work-in- progress is in excess of that recorded/disclosed by the Respondent, the same has to be added to the income only under Section 69A of the Act as held by this Court in Dialust v. DCIT 261 ITR 456. In fact, the impugned order of the Tribunal places

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

9. Moreover, even if assume that the closing stock i.e. work-in- progress is in excess of that recorded/disclosed by the Respondent, the same has to be added to the income only under Section 69A of the Act as held by this Court in Dialust v. DCIT 261 ITR 456. In fact, the impugned order of the Tribunal places

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

9. Moreover, even if assume that the closing stock i.e. work-in- progress is in excess of that recorded/disclosed by the Respondent, the same has to be added to the income only under Section 69A of the Act as held by this Court in Dialust v. DCIT 261 ITR 456. In fact, the impugned order of the Tribunal places

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

9. Moreover, even if assume that the closing stock i.e. work-in- progress is in excess of that recorded/disclosed by the Respondent, the same has to be added to the income only under Section 69A of the Act as held by this Court in Dialust v. DCIT 261 ITR 456. In fact, the impugned order of the Tribunal places

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

9. Moreover, even if assume that the closing stock i.e. work-in- progress is in excess of that recorded/disclosed by the Respondent, the same has to be added to the income only under Section 69A of the Act as held by this Court in Dialust v. DCIT 261 ITR 456. In fact, the impugned order of the Tribunal places