DAYAL AGRO PRODUCTS LTD,AKOLA vs. JCIT, AKOLA RANGE, AKOLA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

74 of the I.T. Act, 1961, short term capital loss can be carried forward for maximum period of 8 years, to be set off against future capital short term gain. Bu, till 2018-19 no such set off has been claimed and the carried forward loss must not have for set off after assessment year 2018-19. Thus, the loss

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

gain. Therefore such an advance was clearly given by the assessee for the purpose of commercial expediency. • 4.4 As far as interest expenses vis-a- vis section 57 is concerned. The assessee wishes to submit that, the section 57(iii), lays down 17 Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal ITA no.375/Nag./2024 following conditions for claim of expenditure. o The expenditure must have

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

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

74 of the Paper Book. 2. With respect to Aadhar Ventures India Limited, the assessee submits the following : i. The Aadhar Ventures India Limited is assessed to tax vide PAN – AABCP4155F. The assessee encloses herewith the details of PAN card of Aadhar Ventures India Limited which is on Page-395 of paper book. The postal address of company is 574/577

SHIVPRASAD SHEVADE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), BSNL RTTC BUILDING, NAGPUR

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Shivprasad Shevade, Ito, Ward-4(4), Plot No. 80, Attadeep Nagar, Vs Bsnl Rttc Building, Seminary Near Juni Vasti Manewada, Nagpur, Hills, Nagpur, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440027. Mharashtra–440033. [Pan: Eqops0368M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

74,000/- treating the entire amount of sale consideration as short-term capital gains, without appreciating the fact that: • The land in question had been sold in earlier years, • Possession had already been handed over prior to FY 2014-15; • Only the registered deeds were executed in FY 2014-15: • Consideration was received in earlier years; • Appellant had no role

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

74,41,705/- (3) Tax Effect 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Rs. 41,41,644/- law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 75,59,132/- made by the AO towards difference in cost of investment in the property based on Department Valuer's Report. Total Tax Effect

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER , NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

74,41,705/- (3) Tax Effect 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Rs. 41,41,644/- law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 75,59,132/- made by the AO towards difference in cost of investment in the property based on Department Valuer's Report. Total Tax Effect

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA RADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

74,41,705/- (3) Tax Effect 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Rs. 41,41,644/- law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 75,59,132/- made by the AO towards difference in cost of investment in the property based on Department Valuer's Report. Total Tax Effect

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

74,41,705/- (3) Tax Effect 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Rs. 41,41,644/- law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 75,59,132/- made by the AO towards difference in cost of investment in the property based on Department Valuer's Report. Total Tax Effect

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

74,41,705/- (3) Tax Effect 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Rs. 41,41,644/- law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 75,59,132/- made by the AO towards difference in cost of investment in the property based on Department Valuer's Report. Total Tax Effect

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

74,41,705/- (3) Tax Effect 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Rs. 41,41,644/- law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 75,59,132/- made by the AO towards difference in cost of investment in the property based on Department Valuer's Report. Total Tax Effect

SHRI AMJAD AHMED SHEIKH,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

74,00,000 different persons against plot of land Total: 1,65,00,000 However, you could not substantiate the statement and therefore, offered additional income of ` 49,50,000/– over and above your returned income. 3.2 In response to notice u/s. 148 you revised the rectum on 21.11.2017 declaring the total of Rs. 58,77,270/-, Thereafter the return

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

SUFALAM INFRA PROJECTS LTD ,NAGPUR vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL ), NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

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

gainful to consider the assessment order dated 30/12/2016, to have a clear understanding of the case. “ASSESSMENT ORDER Return of income U/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was filed on 22/09/2014 by the assessee showing total income of Rs.3,74,72,758/- 2. A Search and seizure operations u/s.132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was conducted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. SUFLAM INFRA PROJECT LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

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

gainful to consider the assessment order dated 30/12/2016, to have a clear understanding of the case. “ASSESSMENT ORDER Return of income U/s 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was filed on 22/09/2014 by the assessee showing total income of Rs.3,74,72,758/- 2. A Search and seizure operations u/s.132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was conducted