DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

e) The deposits with bank treated as unexplained (x) ` 40,63,928 Investment in purchase of land treated unexplained ` 4,42,000 (xi) Total:- ` 8,06,23,989 4 Shree Agarwal Finance India Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.176/Nag./2016 The assessee being aggrieved by the additions so made by the Assessing Officer carried the matter before the first appellate authority

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the A

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

TDS. We thus do not find reason to interfere with the first appellate order on the issue. The same is upheld. The issue is thus decided against the revenue. The above judicial pronouncement has also been followed by co- ordinate Bench of same (Pune) Tribunal in case of :- Jay Tuljabhavani Sah. Patpedhi Pragati V/s ITO (ITAT Pune) Relevant Para

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year

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

E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 27/09/2019, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–1, Nagpur [―learned CIT(A)‖] for the assessment year 2012–13. 2. The following grounds have been raised by the Revenue. ‖1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. These appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even date 29/03/2024, passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur–1, Nagpur, [“learned PCIT”], for the assessment years 2016–17 and 2017–18. 2. Since both these

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. These appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even date 29/03/2024, passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur–1, Nagpur, [“learned PCIT”], for the assessment years 2016–17 and 2017–18. 2. Since both these

SUNILKUMAR RAJENDRA RAI,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

e allowed and delay be condoned in the interest of justice. 10. The delay in submission of present appeal is absolutely unintentional and bonafide and inadvertent mistake on the part of the accountant of assessee and is sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filling of appeal. There is no malafide intention to delay the filing of appeal. In view

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

2(22)(e) 6. Unsecured loans added ` 14,97,50,912 7. Sundry creditors added ` 10,72,87,744 8. Expenses disallowed ` 55,83,523 9. ` 39,42,28,108 The assessee being aggrieved by the issuance of the assessment order so passed by the Assessing Officer, is in appeal before the first appellate authority. 3 Shree Agarwal Coal India

BANK OF INDIA, PANCHGAON,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even date 10/02/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (“the learned CIT(A)”), for the assessment year 2013–14 and 2014–15. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same

BANK OF INDIA,UMRED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CPC.TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even date 10/02/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (“the learned CIT(A)”), for the assessment year 2013–14 and 2014–15. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same

BANK OF INDIA, ARMORI ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even date 10/02/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (“the learned CIT(A)”), for the assessment year 2013–14 and 2014–15. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same

DCIT-CC-1(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. R.B.S.D. AND F.N. DAS(EXPORT FIRM), VIZIANAGRAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The Revenue has filed the present appeal challenging the impugned order dated 30/05/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2020–21. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds:– “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

e copy of ledger account of M/s. Edgar. The total bill amount mentioned in the seized document has been paid to M/s Wismaya through banking channels and duly accounted in books as reflected in his ledger account (Kindly refer Page No.19-21 of Paper Book). The LO. CIT CA) has therefore rightly deleted the addition of Rs.15

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

e copy of ledger account of M/s. Edgar. The total bill amount mentioned in the seized document has been paid to M/s Wismaya through banking channels and duly accounted in books as reflected in his ledger account (Kindly refer Page No.19-21 of Paper Book). The LO. CIT CA) has therefore rightly deleted the addition of Rs.15

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

e copy of ledger account of M/s. Edgar. The total bill amount mentioned in the seized document has been paid to M/s Wismaya through banking channels and duly accounted in books as reflected in his ledger account (Kindly refer Page No.19-21 of Paper Book). The LO. CIT CA) has therefore rightly deleted the addition of Rs.15

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

e copy of ledger account of M/s. Edgar. The total bill amount mentioned in the seized document has been paid to M/s Wismaya through banking channels and duly accounted in books as reflected in his ledger account (Kindly refer Page No.19-21 of Paper Book). The LO. CIT CA) has therefore rightly deleted the addition of Rs.15

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

e copy of ledger account of M/s. Edgar. The total bill amount mentioned in the seized document has been paid to M/s Wismaya through banking channels and duly accounted in books as reflected in his ledger account (Kindly refer Page No.19-21 of Paper Book). The LO. CIT CA) has therefore rightly deleted the addition of Rs.15

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

e copy of ledger account of M/s. Edgar. The total bill amount mentioned in the seized document has been paid to M/s Wismaya through banking channels and duly accounted in books as reflected in his ledger account (Kindly refer Page No.19-21 of Paper Book). The LO. CIT CA) has therefore rightly deleted the addition of Rs.15

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

E R PER BENCH These captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the impugned orders of even date 18/01/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years

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

E R PER BENCH These captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the impugned orders of even date 18/01/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years