DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

10 Jaymahakali Shikshan Sanstha A.Y. 2017–18, 2018–19 & 2019–20 "28.6 It may be noted that new sub-section (1A) inserted in section 161 of the IT Act, which provides for taxation of the entire income received by trusts at the maximum marginal rates is applicable only in the case of private trusts having profits and gains of business

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2 (1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

10 Jaymahakali Shikshan Sanstha A.Y. 2017–18, 2018–19 & 2019–20 "28.6 It may be noted that new sub-section (1A) inserted in section 161 of the IT Act, which provides for taxation of the entire income received by trusts at the maximum marginal rates is applicable only in the case of private trusts having profits and gains of business

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

depreciable asset shall be recognized as income in accordance with the provisions of the said ICDS. The existing provisions of Explanation 10 to clause (1) of section 43 of the Income-tax Act already contained the guidance for treatment of Government grants relating to acquisition of an asset. However, there was no specific guidance available under the provisions

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

depreciable asset shall be recognized as income in accordance with the provisions of the said ICDS. The existing provisions of Explanation 10 to clause (1) of section 43 of the Income-tax Act already contained the guidance for treatment of Government grants relating to acquisition of an asset. However, there was no specific guidance available under the provisions

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

10 Vishal Kishorilal Jain ITA no.108–109/Nag./2025 A.Y. 2016–17 & 2017–18 be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return

ASSTT. CIT, CIR- 7, NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEWQUEST CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

23 ACIT, CIRCLE-7, NAGPUR VS M/s. Newquest Corporation Ltd. (Now known as Avantha Holdings Ltd) 10 percent towards capital by observing that 10 percent of expenses have been incurred towards brand building, The Assessing Officer has not been able to justify as to how the 10 percent of the total advertisement and sales promotion expenses can be allocated towards

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

In the result, Department's appeal stands dismissed

23,114/- is accepted. 2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy (1957) [32 ITR 466] held that, income derived from some measure of cultivation of land with some expenditure of human skill and labour, renders the profit derived from the product agriculture income which would be exempt

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:-

c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or 24 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the appellant, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court

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

depreciation, it clearly indicates the addition is made with the prejudice and unlawful way and therefore needs to be deleted. 18. Further not withstanding anything mentioned in above para, even otherwise, if the expenses on purchase of machines are disallowed, it would ultimately result in increase in gross total income, which is completely deductible under section 80P. Thus, the deduction

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

23-3-2017 declaring total income of Rs. 11,84,37,909. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) were issued and complied with. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 31-12-2018, the learned assessing

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

C–2, Yogeshwar Ganga ..………. Appellant Apartments, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AETPS5421E v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(2), Aayakar Bhawan ..………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 ` Assessee by :Shri Sudesh Banthia Revenue by :Shri Piyush Kolhe Date of Hearing – 19.04.2022 Date of Order – 25.07.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The captioned appeals have been

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

C–2, Yogeshwar Ganga ..………. Appellant Apartments, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AETPS5421E v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(2), Aayakar Bhawan ..………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 ` Assessee by :Shri Sudesh Banthia Revenue by :Shri Piyush Kolhe Date of Hearing – 19.04.2022 Date of Order – 25.07.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The captioned appeals have been

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

C–2, Yogeshwar Ganga ..………. Appellant Apartments, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AETPS5421E v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(2), Aayakar Bhawan ..………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 ` Assessee by :Shri Sudesh Banthia Revenue by :Shri Piyush Kolhe Date of Hearing – 19.04.2022 Date of Order – 25.07.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The captioned appeals have been

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

C–2, Yogeshwar Ganga ..………. Appellant Apartments, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AETPS5421E v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(2), Aayakar Bhawan ..………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 ` Assessee by :Shri Sudesh Banthia Revenue by :Shri Piyush Kolhe Date of Hearing – 19.04.2022 Date of Order – 25.07.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The captioned appeals have been

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

C–2, Yogeshwar Ganga ..………. Appellant Apartments, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AETPS5421E v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(2), Aayakar Bhawan ..………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 ` Assessee by :Shri Sudesh Banthia Revenue by :Shri Piyush Kolhe Date of Hearing – 19.04.2022 Date of Order – 25.07.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The captioned appeals have been

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

C–2, Yogeshwar Ganga ..………. Appellant Apartments, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AETPS5421E v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(2), Aayakar Bhawan ..………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 ` Assessee by :Shri Sudesh Banthia Revenue by :Shri Piyush Kolhe Date of Hearing – 19.04.2022 Date of Order – 25.07.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The captioned appeals have been

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

depreciation for current year as well as preceding year. The assessee filed its revised return on 01/10/2015, claiming TDS which remained to be claimed in original return of income. There were no changes in income insofar as other claims are concerned. The case was selected for Scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer concluded by passing order dated 27/12/2017, under section

THE AMRAVATI PEOPLE CO-OP BANK LTD ( NOW MERGED IN THE COSMOS CO-OP BANK LTD),AMARAVATI vs. D.C.I.T. AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMARAVATI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 309/Nag/2015 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Amravati Peoples Co-Op. Bank Limited (Now Merged In The Cosmos Co-Op. Bank Ltd.) C/O. Cosmos Co-Op Bank Ltd. Jawahar Road, Amravati-444601. Pan : Aaact5899B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Amravati Circle, Amravati. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.G. Gandhi, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Agnes P. Thomas, Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09.05.2022

depreciation allowance, in the following manner, to the extent available" is as under:- Asst. Year Remarks S. Nature of Amount as Amount as No. loss/allowance ( returned (in assessed ( give rupees) in rupees) reference to relevant order) 1. 2002-03 Business loss 28858541 Not available 98748798 2. 2004-05 Business loss 36762850 -Do- 3479468 Total 10,22,28,266/- The assessment

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

10. Submissions made have been considered. 11. Regarding Smt. Savitri Thakur, it is seen that she had issued cheque payment of Rs. 14 lakhs dated 21- 7-2009 to the Appellant. Prior to the issuance of the cheques, this amount was credited into the bank account of Smt. Savitri Thakur maintained in the State Bank of India. Rae Baraeli Branch