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

161 taxmann.com 160 (Del.); which concluded as under:– “91. Tested on the aforesaid precepts, it would be manifest that AY22-23 would form the first year of the block of 10 AYs and with the maximum period of 10 AYs terminating in AY13-14. We, in this regard also bear in consideration the following instructive passages as appearing

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

161 taxmann.com 160 (Del.); which concluded as under:– “91. Tested on the aforesaid precepts, it would be manifest that AY22-23 would form the first year of the block of 10 AYs and with the maximum period of 10 AYs terminating in AY13-14. We, in this regard also bear in consideration the following instructive passages as appearing

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

161 taxmann.com 160 (Del.); which concluded as under:– “91. Tested on the aforesaid precepts, it would be manifest that AY22-23 would form the first year of the block of 10 AYs and with the maximum period of 10 AYs terminating in AY13-14. We, in this regard also bear in consideration the following instructive passages as appearing

HARIOM BIOTECH AGRI FARMING,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CPC BENGALURU, CPC BENGALURU KARNATAKA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

delay condoned by the Administrative Commissioner.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that there is an error in filing the return of income of not mentioning same figure again in the Schedule El. The said error is apparent on the face of the ITR filed by the assessee

RAJURA NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,CHANDRAPUR vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5, CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

condone the delay of 418 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 5. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is a resident AOP (Association of Persons), engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members and assessed to tax. For the assessment year 2016-17, the return of income was filed

SHARDASHREE ISPAT LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 68 unexplained cash credits addition of Rs.45.00 lakhs involving M/s. Muskan Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Shublabh Prints Pvt. 2 Shardashree Ispat Limited Ltd., and Koel Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. for sums of Rs.5.00 lakhs in former and Rs.20.00 lakhs in latter twin instances; respectively. The asessee’s stand all along is that the impugned sums have been routed through banking channels