M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

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

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

justice. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2 M/s. Unijules Life Sciences Ltd. A.Y. 2015–16 2,90,16,000 treating the purchases made by the Appellant to that extent as bogus purchases which is illegal

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

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

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

justice. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2 M/s. Unijules Life Sciences Ltd. 2,90,16,000 treating the purchases made by the Appellant to that extent as bogus purchases which is illegal and the addition

DREAMZ INFRASTRUCTURE ,AMRAVATI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation as per Income Tax Act. The addition made by AO is without affording any opportunity to the assessee. The same be deleted. 3. That the C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 80,69,310/- at 5% on the allegation that amount is spent in respect of land contribution by 7 partners is unjust. In fact

VISHAL KISHORILAL JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

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

justice. 4. The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,49,00,285/- u/s 69 of the Act, without proper consideration of the explanations and documentary evidence submitted by the appellant. 5. The Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO without conducting a proper inquiry into the nature and source

BUCCS LTD. AND NBC AND JV,BULDHANA vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

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

natural justice deserves to be set aside in the interest of law. Appellant is aggrieved with addition made to total income. Accordingly, Penalty U/s 272A(1)(d) o Income Tax the Appellant is also aggrieved with Act, 1961 penalty proceedings initiated U/s 272A(1)(d). The Appellant craves to add, delete, insert, and omit any ground or part

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, NAGPUR vs. SONU MONU AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, Department's appeal stands dismissed

depreciation has to be allowed a twice the\nnormal rate\".\n12. For manufacturing/producing of mushrooms, one building is essentially\nneeded in which the mushrooms are manufactured in racks under certain\ndegree controlled temperature and in the absence of sunlight. This crop cannot\nbe grown on open land under the sunlight and under normal weather\nconditions. Therefore, it is literally manufactured

ANIRUDHA HARIHAR MANDAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), , NAGPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 390/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Anirudha Harihar Mandal 335, New Nandanwan, Nagpur-440009 Pan: Agopm9294J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

natural justice in the former to the merits thereof. 3. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material placed on record in light of rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963. We note that, appellant’s failure to attend scrutiny notices and furnish required details called for, the Ld. AO after putting the assessee to show cause notice [‘SCN’ hereinafter] proceeded

ACIT ,CIRCLE (EXEMPTION ),NAGPUR , NAGPUR vs. M/S SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL ,AMRAVAI , AMRAVATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Acit, Vs. M/S. Sipnashikshan Prasarak Mandal Circle (Exemption), Badnera Road Amravati Amravati Pan No.:Aacts 1266 J Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shripiyushkolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shrihimeshdemble (Ca) Date Of Hearing: 26/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-4, Nagpur Dated 27/03/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 Wherein The Department Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

natural justice. “ I find that as per assessment order out of total of 25 letters sent u/s. 133(6) of the I.T. Act, three donors have denied giving donations to the appellant trust. However, out of these three only in one case the appellant has been allowed an opportunity of cross examination. Only in case of Shri. Ajay Darokar cross

DEENDAYAL SEVA PRATISHTHAN,YAVATMAL vs. ITO WARD-4, EXEMPTION, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

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

nature needs no separate adjudication. 6. In result, appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” Consequent upon passing of the impugned order by the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5 Deendayal Seva Pratishthan ITA no.547/Nag./2024 5. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee could not point out any infirmity in the impugned order

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

justice. 4. Any other ground which may be taken at the time of hearing with the permission of Hon'ble ITAT.” 3. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is a Scheduled Co-operative Bank engaged in the activities of banking within the purview of Banking Regulation Act. The assessee filed its return of income on 30/09/2015, disclosing total income

MAYUR KHARA,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

nature of the land. 2.6 We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties, carefully perused the material placed on record and also considered the order passed u/s 263 and his observation therein and appellant reply to the PCIT and the original assessment order and are of the view that the appellant has furnished all information as asked