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

125, Abyankar Road, Sitabuldi, ……………. Respondent Nagpur, PAN : AAJFR4038G Assessee by : Shri Kapil Hirani, Advocate and Shri Mukesh Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT DR Date of Hearing – 25/06/2024 Date of Order – 29 /07/2024 O R D E R PER K.M.ROY, A.M. These appeals have been preferred by the revenue and the cross objections by the assessee, details

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

125, Abyankar Road, Sitabuldi, ……………. Respondent Nagpur, PAN : AAJFR4038G Assessee by : Shri Kapil Hirani, Advocate and Shri Mukesh Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT DR Date of Hearing – 25/06/2024 Date of Order – 29 /07/2024 O R D E R PER K.M.ROY, A.M. These appeals have been preferred by the revenue and the cross objections by the assessee, details

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

125, Abyankar Road, Sitabuldi, ……………. Respondent Nagpur, PAN : AAJFR4038G Assessee by : Shri Kapil Hirani, Advocate and Shri Mukesh Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT DR Date of Hearing – 25/06/2024 Date of Order – 29 /07/2024 O R D E R PER K.M.ROY, A.M. These appeals have been preferred by the revenue and the cross objections by the assessee, details

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

125, Abyankar Road, Sitabuldi, ……………. Respondent Nagpur, PAN : AAJFR4038G Assessee by : Shri Kapil Hirani, Advocate and Shri Mukesh Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT DR Date of Hearing – 25/06/2024 Date of Order – 29 /07/2024 O R D E R PER K.M.ROY, A.M. These appeals have been preferred by the revenue and the cross objections by the assessee, details

SHREE MAYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

price is an estimation nevertheless, even if by a statutory authority like the stamp duty valuation authority, and such a valuation can never be elevated to the status of such a precise computation which admits no variations. The rigour of Section 50C(1) was thus relaxed, and very thoughtfully so, to take these bonafide cases of small variations between

SHREE MAYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

price is an estimation nevertheless, even if by a statutory authority like the stamp duty valuation authority, and such a valuation can never be elevated to the status of such a precise computation which admits no variations. The rigour of Section 50C(1) was thus relaxed, and very thoughtfully so, to take these bonafide cases of small variations between

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

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

125 ITR 0713 (SC) Kishanchad Chellaram –Vs.- Commissioner of Income Tax T, an employee of Madras officer of assessee making a telegraphic transfer of an amount of Rs. 1,07,350 to N, an employee of assessee in Bombay office, the amount cannot be assessed as undisclosed income of in the absence of positive material brought by Revenue to prove

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

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

125 ITR 0713 (SC) Kishanchad Chellaram –Vs.- Commissioner of Income Tax T, an employee of Madras officer of appellant making a telegraphic transfer of an amount of Rs. 1,07,350 to N, an employee of appellant in Bombay office, the amount cannot be assessed as undisclosed income of in the absence of positive material brought by Revenue to prove

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

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

125 ITR 713 (Supreme Court of India) Kishinchand Chellaram –Vs.- Commissioner of Income Tax Income from undisclosed sources-Chargeability-T, an employee of Madras office of assessee making a telegraphic transfer of an amount of Rs. 107350 to N, an employee of assessee Bombay Office-On enquiry made by ITO from Madras bank, manager of bank informing ITO that telegraphic

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

125 ITR 713 (Supreme Court of India) 12 Shri Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani ITA no.410/Nag./2019 A.Y. 2014–15 KishinchandChellaram –Vs.- Commissioner of Income Tax Income from undisclosed sources-Chargeability-T, an employee of Madras office of assessee making a telegraphic transfer of an amount of Rs. 107350 to N, an employee of assessee Bombay Office-On enquiry made

I.T.O. WARD -1, AMRAVATI vs. SHRI SANJAY NANASAHEB BHARSAKALE, AMRAVATI

In the result, the appeal of the department is rejected

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

transferred the same to the account of Shri Rajesh Hiwase. The appellant has purchased the sand from Shri Rajesh Hiwase and he issued the bill in favour of appellant. The copies of bills, ledger account of appellant are on record. The A.O. also verified the aforesaid fact from the information obtained from District Mining Officer, Collector Office, Amravati under section