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

purchases Coal from South Eastern Coal Fields, Gevra- Dipka- Korba (CG) and sell the same to various parties. However, the details of return of income filed under section 139(1) and under section 153A for the assessment year 2014–15 to 2016-17 are given as under:– Due date Income ROI filed Income ROI filed for issue returned under returned

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

purchases Coal from South Eastern Coal Fields, Gevra- Dipka- Korba (CG) and sell the same to various parties. However, the details of return of income filed under section 139(1) and under section 153A for the assessment year 2014–15 to 2016-17 are given as under:– Due date Income ROI filed Income ROI filed for issue returned under returned

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

purchases Coal from South Eastern Coal Fields, Gevra- Dipka- Korba (CG) and sell the same to various parties. However, the details of return of income filed under section 139(1) and under section 153A for the assessment year 2014–15 to 2016-17 are given as under:– Due date Income ROI filed Income ROI filed for issue returned under returned

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

purchases Coal from South Eastern Coal Fields, Gevra- Dipka- Korba (CG) and sell the same to various parties. However, the details of return of income filed under section 139(1) and under section 153A for the assessment year 2014–15 to 2016-17 are given as under:– Due date Income ROI filed Income ROI filed for issue returned under returned

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

purchase and sale of shares, which is part of Paper book and also sent on remand. On 18.03.2011, the aforesaid share were sold for the Rs. 42,53,735/-. Demat account and Sale Note were produced. The loss incurred at Rs. 57,46,180/- was reflected in the ITR for A.Y. 2011- 12. At the same time, the assessee further

M/S. UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Unijules Life Sciences The Assistant Ltd., V Commissioner Of Income B-35/36, Midc, S Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Kamleshwar, Nagpur. Nagpur – 441501 Pan: Aaacu8032D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Adv.-Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Nagpur Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 08.11.2011 For The A.Y.2012-13 Emanating From The Order Under Section 153A R.W.S 143(3) Of M/S.Unijule Life Sciences Ltd., [A]

section 153A r.w.s 143(3) of M/s.Unijule Life Sciences Ltd., [A] the Act, dated 30.03.2016. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) The Assessment u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) is illegal, invalid and deserves to quashed in the interest of justice. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.5, NAGPUR vs. M/S AVANTHA HOLDINGS LTD.,, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

bogus and inflated. Thus, the Id. CIT(A) allowed this expenditure in terms of provision of Section 30 of the I.T. Act. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Department has not filed any supporting evidence/ rebuttal against the written submission Id. AR of the assessee except arguing that

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

section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). When demanded by the Assessing Officer, the assessee produced its books of account, bills & vouchers and the same were examined by the Assessing Officer on test check basis. On verification of Profit & Loss Account, it was noticed that the assessee had claimed brokerage and commission expenses to the tune

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

section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). When demanded by the Assessing Officer, the assessee produced its books of account, bills & vouchers and the same were examined by the Assessing Officer on test check basis. On verification of Profit & Loss Account, it was noticed that the assessee had claimed brokerage and commission expenses to the tune

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

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. 4. During the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) considering

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR vs. M/S. GUPTA METALLICS & POWER LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

40 3,46,884 Char, Ash 3. Iron Ore 36030.220 37230.500 1200.280 2850 34,20,798 4. Coal 1026.270 12367.000 2105.730 1400 29,48,022 5. Dolomite 49.750 240.800 191.050 800 1,52,840 Total 1,17,18,149 7. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made addition of ` 1,17,18,149, which was added to the total income

AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-5,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

bogus and inflated. Thus, the Id. CIT(A) allowed this expenditure in terms of provision of Section 30 of the I.T. Act. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Department has not filed any supporting evidence/ rebuttal against the written submission Id. AR of the assessee except arguing that

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

bogus and inflated. Thus, the Id. CIT(A) allowed this expenditure\nin terms of provision of Section 30 of the I.T. Act. Taking into consideration\nthe above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Department\nhas not filed any supporting evidence/ rebuttal against the written submission\nId. AR of the assessee except arguing that

I.T.O. WARD -1, AMRAVATI vs. SHRI SANJAY NANASAHEB BHARSAKALE, AMRAVATI

In the result, the appeal of the department is rejected

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

40] Copy of account of Sharad Wasu 41] Copy of acknowledgement of Audit Report in Form 704 42] Copy of Statement of Audit Report in Form – 7-4 43] Copy of Written submission filed before CIT(A)-1, Nagpur 44] Copy of Remand Report filed by Assessing Officer 45] Copy of submission of rejoinder to remand report 46] Copy

SHRI GO0VINDDAS GOVARDHANDAS DAGA,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

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

bogus claim of Rs. 175 lakhs u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Thus, taking into consideration all these cumulative factors, the Ld. AO has disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs. 175 lakhs u/s. 35(1) (ii) of the Act. 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by confirming the order passed

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.2, NAGPUR vs. SHRI GOVINDDAS GOVERDHAN DAGA, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

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

bogus claim of Rs. 175 lakhs u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Thus, taking into consideration all these cumulative factors, the Ld. AO has disallowed the claim of deduction of Rs. 175 lakhs u/s. 35(1) (ii) of the Act. 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by confirming the order passed

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON vs. RENUKA OIL INDUSTRIES, KHAMGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

3 Renuka Oil Industries ITA no.390/Nag./2024 4. The learned CIT(A), insofar as claim of deduction under section 35AD of the Act by the assessee is concerned, the learned CIT(A) allowed the claim by observing as under:- “6.7 On perusal & verification of the above submissions filed by the appellant vis a vis the concerned original return of income

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

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that share capital and premium received are on capital account and therefore cannot be treated as income without appreciating the fact that the assessing officer had given a finding that the transaction was not a genuine transaction and therefore the same