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

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

65 ITD 263 (Delhi) has held as under: It is a well-settled law that where the Assessing Officer fails to make proper inquiries and investigation, such failure on the part of the Assessing Officer will result in prejudice to interests of the revenue and initiation of action under section 263 by the Commissioner under such circumstances will be perfectly

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

65,17,247 /- (6) Tax Effect 1. Addition u/s 68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME

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

65,17,247 /- (6) Tax Effect 1. Addition u/s 68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME

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

65,17,247 /- (6) Tax Effect 1. Addition u/s 68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME

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

65,17,247 /- (6) Tax Effect 1. Addition u/s 68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME

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

65,17,247 /- (6) Tax Effect 1. Addition u/s 68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME

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

65,17,247 /- (6) Tax Effect 1. Addition u/s 68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,— Spark Mall and Parking Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.33/Nag./2022 (a) the order is passed without making

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. VISHNU GILTS PVT.LT, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Mfrs. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC), Aluminium Corpn.of India Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC) and CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC). 4.8 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant was asked about applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(viib

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. M/S NIHAL GITS PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Mfrs. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC), Aluminium Corpn.of India Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC) and CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC). 4.8 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant was asked about applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(viib

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, NAGPUR vs. M/S RAGHAV FINVEST PVT LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

65 ITR 381 (SC), J.K. Woollen Mfrs. v. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 612 (SC), Aluminium Corpn.of India Ltd. v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 11 (SC) and CIT v. Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. [1976] 103 ITR 66 (SC). 4.8 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant was asked about applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(viib

MANISHA ASHUTOSH SHEWALKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

price more than the normal, sale of prevailing sales can be regarded as capital assets. Thus, the assessee’s case was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by issuing notice 04/01/2019, under section 148 of the Act in response to the which, the assessee, on 08/02/2019, filed her return of income for the assessment

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

65,00,000/- from Avance technologies Limited and the same were duly shown in the books of accounts of the appellant as well as in Audited Balance Sheet of the appellant as Advance received from Booking, which evidence from agreement to sale. 2. The appellant has received advance against booking of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- & Rs.65

RAJESH SARDA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Rajesh Sarda, Acit, Central Circle – 2(2), Nagpur 14, Daga Lay–Out, Ambazari Road, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440033. Maharashtra – 440001. [Pan: Ahaps4925M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

transferred to the share brokers and ultimately used for purchase of shares by various brokers / companies. On the basis of such observation, the AO treated the transaction of both the long term capital gain as sham transaction and aggregate of both the long term capital gains of Rs. 18.84 crore was treated income from undisclosed sources in the assessment order

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

65,805 15–16 2011–12 4,50,00,000 89,60,765 17–19 2012–13 6,70,00,000 1,94,88,933 20–21 No claim being 2013–14 16,74,00,000 22–23 loss No claim being 2014–15 4,50,00,000 24–25 loss No claim being

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), NAGPUR vs. SHRI WAMAN MAHADEORAO SARODE, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

65,000 and the Fair Market Value (FMV) of which is ` 1,76,90,000. The Assessing Officer also sought explanation from the assessee as to why the difference n purchase value and FMV should not be treated as his income from Other Source of Income. In response, the assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year

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 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year