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

2. I have carefully considered the submission of the AR of the appellant, Statement of Facts, order of the AO and material on record. The AO found that the assessee has failed to offer annual value as per Section 22 of the Income Tax Act on the property which is other than the self occupied property. I find that

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

2. I have carefully considered the submission of the AR of the appellant, Statement of Facts, order of the AO and material on record. The AO found that the assessee has failed to offer annual value as per Section 22 of the Income Tax Act on the property which is other than the self occupied property. I find that

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

2. I have carefully considered the submission of the AR of the appellant, Statement of Facts, order of the AO and material on record. The AO found that the assessee has failed to offer annual value as per Section 22 of the Income Tax Act on the property which is other than the self occupied property. I find that

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

2. I have carefully considered the submission of the AR of the appellant, Statement of Facts, order of the AO and material on record. The AO found that the assessee has failed to offer annual value as per Section 22 of the Income Tax Act on the property which is other than the self occupied property. I find that

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

43,142/- of which 45,70,112/- was debited to the P&L A/c. for the year under consideration. The balance expenditure of Rs.6,36,73,030/- has been deferred over a period of 3 years as deferred revenue expenditure. However, in its return, the assessee company has claimed the entire expenditure incurred on brand promotion as allowable expenses

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

TDS has been deducted on such interest expenses claimed; more so, the alleged sum had already been repaid on 4-10-18 prior to the search conducted on 11-7-19; the addition of Rs.7,59,397 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 29. The Assessing Officer has made following additions:– Opening bal. Interest credited Loan creditors

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

TDS has been deducted on such interest expenses claimed; more so, the alleged sum had already been repaid on 4-10-18 prior to the search conducted on 11-7-19; the addition of Rs.7,59,397 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 29. The Assessing Officer has made following additions:– Opening bal. Interest credited Loan creditors

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

TDS has been deducted on such interest expenses claimed; more so, the alleged sum had already been repaid on 4-10-18 prior to the search conducted on 11-7-19; the addition of Rs.7,59,397 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 29. The Assessing Officer has made following additions:– Opening bal. Interest credited Loan creditors

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

TDS has been deducted on such interest expenses claimed; more so, the alleged sum had already been repaid on 4-10-18 prior to the search conducted on 11-7-19; the addition of Rs.7,59,397 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 29. The Assessing Officer has made following additions:– Opening bal. Interest credited Loan creditors

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

TDS has been deducted on such interest expenses claimed; more so, the alleged sum had already been repaid on 4-10-18 prior to the search conducted on 11-7-19; the addition of Rs.7,59,397 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 29. The Assessing Officer has made following additions:– Opening bal. Interest credited Loan creditors

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

TDS has been deducted on such interest expenses claimed; more so, the alleged sum had already been repaid on 4-10-18 prior to the search conducted on 11-7-19; the addition of Rs.7,59,397 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 29. The Assessing Officer has made following additions:– Opening bal. Interest credited Loan creditors

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AKOLA, NAGPUR vs. RBSD AND FN DAS, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

43,96,254 2. D. Govind ` 9,99,700 3. D.S. Prakash ` 9,84,000 4. E.V. Mani ` 9,83,000 5. P. Suresh ` 9,85,000 6. P. Suryaprakash ` 9,94,000 7. S. Satyanarayana ` 9,91,000 8. V. Ramesh ` 9,81,000 ` 14,41,180 9. N. Appalaramulu ` 45,06,179 10. Pradeep Kumar Katakwar

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

TDS was not deducted. Such disallowance was made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Effectively, the business loss to be carried forward for subsequent years was reduced. Being aggrieved, appeal was preferred. 3 The Akola Urban Co–operative Bank Ltd. ITA no.119/Nag./2020 4. The learned CIT(A) elaborately dealt with the issue vide Para

AMARCHAND LAXMINARAYAN MANTRI,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

2. That the addition of Rs.1,43,066/- in the returned income is not proper and deserves to be deleted. 3. That any other ground/ (s) that may be raised at the time of hearing.” 15. The assessee has filed its return of income disclosing total income at ` 12,49,430. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has paid

AMARCHAND LAXMINARAYAN MANTRI,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

2. That the addition of Rs.1,43,066/- in the returned income is not proper and deserves to be deleted. 3. That any other ground/ (s) that may be raised at the time of hearing.” 15. The assessee has filed its return of income disclosing total income at ` 12,49,430. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has paid

SHRI MAHESH DEVDUTTA GUPTA,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3),, NAGPUR

In the result, the addition so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

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

43,524/- whereas the whole of TDS credit as shown in the TDS certificate of Rs 4440/- has been claimed by the assessee. The ld CIT(A) has returned a finding that the contention of the assessee that he has actually received less interest income is not supported by any bank statement or any other documentary evidence. Further, during

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

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

43,636 ` 6,46,05,741 Loan from Shree Agarwal Coal India P.Ltd. treated (After Rectifi- (viii) as dividend u/s 2(22)(e) cation: ` 6,49,70,741 Loan from Mansa Agro Food Processing P. Ltd ` 3,65,000 (ix) treated dividend u/s 2 (22)(e) The deposits with bank treated as unexplained (x) ` 40,63,928 Investment in purchase