SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

124 TTJ 674 (Jodhpur) iii) Charchit Agarwal Vs ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Delhi) 6 Smt. AanjuSaraf 8. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue relating to claim made under section 80IB of the Act has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

124 TTJ 674 (Jodhpur) iii) Charchit Agarwal Vs ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Delhi) 6 Smt. AanjuSaraf 8. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue relating to claim made under section 80IB of the Act has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

124 TTJ 674 (Jodhpur) iii) Charchit Agarwal Vs ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Delhi) 6 Smt. AanjuSaraf 8. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue relating to claim made under section 80IB of the Act has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

124 TTJ 674 (Jodhpur) iii) Charchit Agarwal Vs ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Delhi) 6 Smt. AanjuSaraf 8. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue relating to claim made under section 80IB of the Act has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year

ASSTT. CIT, CIR- 7, NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEWQUEST CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

2. Hon’ble Delhi High Court Order in the case of Seagrm Distilleries (P) Ltd. (ITA No. 224/2016 dated 06-04- 2016) 3. CIT vsWillamson Tea (Assam) Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 323 (Gau) 4. CIT vs Lake Palace Hotels & Motels (P)Ltd (2007) 293 ITR 281 (Raj) 5. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.(2005) 274 ITR 463 (Raj) 29 ACIT

BANK OF INDIA, DONGARGAON NAGPUR vs. DY.CIT(TDS), CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

section 201 of the Act is 2 years from the end of the financial year 2009-10 or 2011-12, as the case may be. Thus, the Assessing Officer had time to pass an order for such appeals till 31st March, 2012 and 31st March, 2014, as the case may be. 21. Whereas in these 3 appeals, the Assessing Officer

BANK OF INDIA,MAHAL BRANCH NAGPUR vs. DY.CIT(TDS)CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

section 201 of the Act is 2 years from the end of the financial year 2009-10 or 2011-12, as the case may be. Thus, the Assessing Officer had time to pass an order for such appeals till 31st March, 2012 and 31st March, 2014, as the case may be. 21. Whereas in these 3 appeals, the Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S. FUELCO COAL INDIA LTD., NAGPUR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS deducted by the appellant from payment to M/s Bothra Shipping Services Pvt Ltd to the government account before the due date for filing the return of income. This addition is discussed in para 4(2) of the assessment order. In his written submission the AR has stated that subsequent to filing this appeal the appellant filed a rectification petition

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

TDS No. Deducted 1 Amarchand Omprakash Kasat 4,200 - 2 Arihant Corporation 30,667 3,067 3 Ashok Bharatlal Agrawal 1,100 - 4 Ashok Bharatlal Agrawal (HUF) 11,025 1,103 5 Baba Accosiates 1,07,000 10,700 6 Bilala Refinaries 1,02,000 10,200 7 Chandadevi B Khandelwal 73,608 7,361 8 Chetan Ashok Agrawal