ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,RAIPUR (CG), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S SARDA ENERGY & MINERALS LTD , NAGPUR

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

127 = 36,70,781 (working as per Annexure ‘A’ attached) Therefore, an amount of Rs.36,70,781/- has been disallowed u/s. 14A, r.w. Rule 8D as discussed above. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) are separately initiated as the assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of its income.” 8. Aggrieved with the above addition, the assessee filed an appeal before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. DEEPAK SURESH GADGE, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

price at similar rate cannot be disputed for in between years. Hence addition made in the case of appellant is incorrect.” ITA No.99 & 100/NAG/2023 Deepak Suresh Gadge 10. Ld.AR further relied upon the following documents to prove his contentions : - i. Audited Financial Statement as on 31/03/2017 in the case of assessee. ii. Ledger Account of Shares of OCHFL (Primary Allotment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. DEEPAK SURESH GADGE, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

price at similar rate cannot be disputed for in between years. Hence addition made in the case of appellant is incorrect.” ITA No.99 & 100/NAG/2023 Deepak Suresh Gadge 10. Ld.AR further relied upon the following documents to prove his contentions : - i. Audited Financial Statement as on 31/03/2017 in the case of assessee. ii. Ledger Account of Shares of OCHFL (Primary Allotment

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

price. The impossible requires to be rejected on the basis of common sense and probability. The documents in the form of Govt rates for stamp duty shows that market rate in relevant area is Rs.65,00,000 per hector. Thus value of said land which is roughly 2.5 hector comes to 1 crore 52 lakhs. No sane person will sale

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

transferred into respondent's Demat account where it remained for more than one year. After a period of one year the shares were sold by the said broker on various dates in the Kolkata Stock Exchange. Pursuant to sale of shares the said broker had also issued contract notes cum bill for sale and these contract notes and bills were

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

transferred into respondent's Demat account where it remained for more than one year. After a period of one year the shares were sold by the said broker on various dates in the (Indrakumar Ghisulal Agrawal) Kolkata Stock Exchange. Pursuant to sale of shares the said broker had also issued contract notes cum bill for sale and these contract notes

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

127 of paper book. iv. So far as the bank statement of Aadhar Ventures India Limited showing the transfer of funds is concerned, the assessee encloses herewith the copy of bank statement of Aadhar Ventures India Limited alongwith Copy of account of Aadhar Ventures India Limited which is on Page-128 of paper book. v. The assessee respectfully submits that

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

price of M/s. ParagShilp Infrastructure & Services Ltd. to enable to assessee to legitimize his unaccounted fund. x) On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire gamut of direct & circumstantial evidence placed on record shows that claim of Long Term Capital Gain is Bogus in nature