M/S TAWARI TRADERS ,BULDHANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2, KHAMGAON

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

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

capital of partner is interest bearing funds for the firm. 7.6 In conclusion, the AO erred in not considering that interest free advances were out of interest free loan availed by the appellant. Consequently, the interest of Rs.5,30,902 i.e., 15% of Rs.35,39,351 (interest free advances) deserves to be deleted from the total addition of Rs.9

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is unjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for not allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of redemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

Gains from Business and Profession" shall be computed in accordance with either cash system of accounting or mercantile system of accounting. As per sub section (1) of section 128 of the 2013 Act a company is compulsorily required to follow mercantile system of accounting. The Appellant being a company is compulsory required to follow mercantile system of accounting with respect

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

Gains from Business and Profession" shall be computed in accordance with either cash system of accounting or mercantile system of accounting. As per sub section (1) of section 128 of the 2013 Act a company is compulsorily required to follow mercantile system of accounting. The Appellant being a company is compulsory required to follow mercantile system of accounting with respect

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is unjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for not allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of redemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. M/S CHADDA TRANSPORT , CHANDRAPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.363/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant M/S.Chadda Transport, Commissioner Of V Kosara Road, Padoli, Income Tax, S Chandrapur, Chandrapur Circle, Maharashtra – 442401. Chandrapur. Pan: Aaafc8556F Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Cross Objection No.01/Nag/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.363/Nag/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S.Chadda Transport, The Assistant Kosara Road, Padoli, V Commissioner Of Income Chandrapur, S Tax, Maharashtra – 442401. Chandrapur Circle, Chandrapur. Pan: Aaafc8556F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mukesh Agrawal – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Mrathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/12/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am:

Capital Gains taxable u/s 50 : Rs. 2,90,22,977/- In view of the above, I have reasons to believe that income to the tune of Rs.2,90,22,977/- has escaped assessment and it is a fit case for reopening of assessment as envisaged under the provisions of section 148 /147

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

RAGHAV AGRITECH,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

capital expenditure provisions of sec. 40 are in the nature of overriding provisions - It starts with the words "notwithstanding anything contrary in sections 30 to 38", which shows that even if an expenditure or allowance comes within the purview in all the sections from 30 to 38 as well as sec. 40, the provisions of sec. 40 will prevail. This

PRITAM SINGH CHARAN SINGH GUJJAR,NAGPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

40,22,000, for stamp duty purposes. The Assessing Officer adopted the stamp duty valuation for computing profit and gains arising on sale of property by the assessee. The Assessing officer has not brought any evidence on record to show that the assessee has received any money other than the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. The Assessing officer

SHREE MAYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 43CA cannot be applied in the appellant's case since the property has certain disadvantages. All these facts have been carefully considered by the DVO while determining the market value and therefore, no further relief can be given on this account. The appellant's AR has also referred to certain judicial decisions in support of the arguments

SHREE MAYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 43CA cannot be applied in the appellant's case since the property has certain disadvantages. All these facts have been carefully considered by the DVO while determining the market value and therefore, no further relief can be given on this account. The appellant's AR has also referred to certain judicial decisions in support of the arguments

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

40,000 (including premium) from two companies („investor companies‟). The assessee had issued 1,30,200 shares @ ` 200 per share (Face Value ` 10, each and share premium of ` 190 each) to the investor companies. The Assessing Officer finalized the assessment proceedings by making addition of share premium received of ` 2,47,38,000 (i.e., 1,30,200 shares @ ` 190 each

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

40,000 (including premium) from two companies („investor companies‟). The assessee had issued 1,30,200 shares @ ` 200 per share (Face Value ` 10, each and share premium of ` 190 each) to the investor companies. The Assessing Officer finalized the assessment proceedings by making addition of share premium received of ` 2,47,38,000 (i.e., 1,30,200 shares @ ` 190 each

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

40,000 (including premium) from two companies („investor companies‟). The assessee had issued 1,30,200 shares @ ` 200 per share (Face Value ` 10, each and share premium of ` 190 each) to the investor companies. The Assessing Officer finalized the assessment proceedings by making addition of share premium received of ` 2,47,38,000 (i.e., 1,30,200 shares @ ` 190 each

VIKAS GUPTA ,INDORE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

capital gain assessable in their hands. Those returns have been accepted under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The assessments have attained finality. No notice under section 143(2) for scrutinizing the returns have been issued upon the assessee before the search carried out. Even the time limit for issuance of such notice have already been expired before

SHRI VISHWAKARAMA JEWELLERS ,AKOLA vs. DCIT AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

capital gains' and (v) 'income from other sources cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon'ble Gujarat High Court the source of gold confiscated was not identifiable and hence

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

gains of business attributable to the business of providing banking and credit facilities to the members of society. Therefore, even if certain expenses are disallowed, it will result in increase in gross taxable income and deduction under section 80P, would be allowable on 100% of such gross taxable income. 5.5 This jurisprudence is also endorsed by the Pune Tribunal

DILIP JAIKUMAR CHANDAK,AMRAVATI vs. ITO WARD-1, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri R.K. Panda

40,00,000, and offered the long term capital gains to tax. The case was selected for scrutiny and it was noticed that the assessee, based on the report of a registered valuer, adopted the cost of acquisition of the property as on 01/04/1981 at ` 7,99,000 and computed the capital gains. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with