DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR vs. AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act\n1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is\nunjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for\nnot allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of\nredemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be had been subject matter of any appeal filed on or before after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under this sub-section shall extended and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matter as had not been considered and decided in such

UDAYKUMAR VYAS,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1 (5), BSNL RTTC BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royudaykumar Vyas, Ito, Ward – 1(5) Flat No. 402, Lepresting Vs Nagpur Apartment, Plot No. 105- 106, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. Pan : Aarpv 4578 K Assessee Respondent

5), Nagpur for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) and AO failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant is regularly engaged in the business of purchasing and selling land for profit, to which

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

transfer price audit report and other relevant evidence also. Further, after delivery, there is an unexplained expenditure in the hands of the appellant. This must be to suppress the turnover in the hands of Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., was also subject to search proceeding u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment orders

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

transfer price audit report and other relevant evidence also. Further, after delivery, there is an unexplained expenditure in the hands of the appellant. This must be to suppress the turnover in the hands of Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., was also subject to search proceeding u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment orders

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

transfer price audit report and other relevant evidence also. Further, after delivery, there is an unexplained expenditure in the hands of the appellant. This must be to suppress the turnover in the hands of Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., was also subject to search proceeding u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment orders

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

transfer price audit report and other relevant evidence also. Further, after delivery, there is an unexplained expenditure in the hands of the appellant. This must be to suppress the turnover in the hands of Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., was also subject to search proceeding u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment orders

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

transfer price audit report and other relevant evidence also. Further, after delivery, there is an unexplained expenditure in the hands of the appellant. This must be to suppress the turnover in the hands of Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., was also subject to search proceeding u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment orders

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

transfer price audit report and other relevant evidence also. Further, after delivery, there is an unexplained expenditure in the hands of the appellant. This must be to suppress the turnover in the hands of Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., was also subject to search proceeding u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment orders

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE , AKOLA vs. AKOLA URBAN CO-OPRATIVE BANK LTD , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

5,284.23 On crediting the NPA accounts by the NBV, the system considered it as a repayment and appropriated it against Interest Receivable A/c. Consequently, the Overdue Interest Reserve A/c was transferred to the P&L A/c and booked as income. However, the Bank has reversed such system generated entries by debiting the P&L A/c and transferring the income

TAJSHREE AUTOWHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

transferred to Share Capital was Rs.20,00,000 and to Share Premium was Rs.80,00,000. 2. Percentage of shareholding of the shareholders holding more than 5% of shares are as follows- Sr.No. Name of No. of shares % held Shareholder held as on 31/03/2013 1. Avinash Bhute 1,05,000 8.93 2. Nitin Bhute 2,62,000 22.29 3. Prashant

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

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

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:

transferred to DMAT account on 19.12.2012. The payment for same has been made through banking channels and the same is reflected in the bank statement of the appellant. The regular assessment for Asstt. Year 2013-14 was completed by A.O. on 01/03/2016 wherein the investment made in purchase of shares has been accepted without inviting any adverse observations

SHRI SANKET NANDLAL SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

43,914/- during AY 2009-10. It was submitted that the assessee was co-owner of land located at Mouza Pasodi, named as Pragati Bhawan with two family members. He has sold land by agreement to sale on for Rs. 51,00,000/- with two co-owners of the property and his share in the property

SPARK MALL AND PARKING PVT. LTD, NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

43,99,20,000, from M/s. A.N. Enterprises Infrastructure Services Pvt. Ltd. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the provisions of Explanation 2 to section 263, wherein it says that– Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer 3[or the Transfer Pricing Officer

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

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and filed his submissions. After considering the submissions of the Assessee, Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the Assessee. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us by raising the above grounds

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

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and filed his submissions. After considering the submissions of the Assessee, Ld.CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the Assessee. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us by raising the above grounds