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

26 ACIT, CIRCLE-7, NAGPUR VS M/s. Newquest Corporation Ltd. (Now known as Avantha Holdings Ltd) "10. Even from the facts of the case it is seen that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is not creating any enduring benefit of an asset but is rather helping the assessee in augmenting its sales and resultantly its profit. Even

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted as noted hereinabove. Thus

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:-

26 27 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur Even jurisdictional Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT vs. NiravModi [2017] 390 ITR 292(Bom) (HC), has held that the appellant had received gifts from donors located abroad. The gifts were received in previous years relevant to Assessment Years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. The AO on enquiry

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

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

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA COAL(INDIA) LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,69,92,222/-. The ground is allowed in favour of the appellant.” 12 Group of 22 Cases, Nagpur. Gupta group of cases. 13. We have perused the case records and heard the submissions of the Ld. DR. We have also

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD(EAELIER KNOWN AS GUPTA COALFIELDS 7 WASHHERIES LTD), NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,69,92,222/-. The ground is allowed in favour of the appellant.” 12 Group of 22 Cases, Nagpur. Gupta group of cases. 13. We have perused the case records and heard the submissions of the Ld. DR. We have also

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD(EAELIER KNOWN AS GUPTA COALFIELDS & WASHHERIES LTD), NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,69,92,222/-. The ground is allowed in favour of the appellant.” 12 Group of 22 Cases, Nagpur. Gupta group of cases. 13. We have perused the case records and heard the submissions of the Ld. DR. We have also

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA COAL(INDIA) LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,69,92,222/-. The ground is allowed in favour of the appellant.” 12 Group of 22 Cases, Nagpur. Gupta group of cases. 13. We have perused the case records and heard the submissions of the Ld. DR. We have also

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA COAL(INDIA) LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,69,92,222/-. The ground is allowed in favour of the appellant.” 12 Group of 22 Cases, Nagpur. Gupta group of cases. 13. We have perused the case records and heard the submissions of the Ld. DR. We have also

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA COAL(INDIA) LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,69,92,222/-. The ground is allowed in favour of the appellant.” 12 Group of 22 Cases, Nagpur. Gupta group of cases. 13. We have perused the case records and heard the submissions of the Ld. DR. We have also

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD(EAELIER KNOWN AS GUPTA COALFIELDS & WASHHERIES LTD), NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,69,92,222/-. The ground is allowed in favour of the appellant.” 12 Group of 22 Cases, Nagpur. Gupta group of cases. 13. We have perused the case records and heard the submissions of the Ld. DR. We have also

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD(EAELIER KNOWN AS GUPTA COALFIELDS & WASHHERIES LTD), NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,69,92,222/-. The ground is allowed in favour of the appellant.” 12 Group of 22 Cases, Nagpur. Gupta group of cases. 13. We have perused the case records and heard the submissions of the Ld. DR. We have also

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA COAL(INDIA) LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,69,92,222/-. The ground is allowed in favour of the appellant.” 12 Group of 22 Cases, Nagpur. Gupta group of cases. 13. We have perused the case records and heard the submissions of the Ld. DR. We have also

ASTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIR 2(3) R, NAGPUR vs. M GUPTA COALFIELDS & WASHERIES LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,69,92,222/-. The ground is allowed in favour of the appellant.” 12 Group of 22 Cases, Nagpur. Gupta group of cases. 13. We have perused the case records and heard the submissions of the Ld. DR. We have also

ASSTT.C,I,.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA COALFIELDS & WASHERIES LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO is directed to allow additional depreciation of Rs.1,69,92,222/-. The ground is allowed in favour of the appellant.” 12 Group of 22 Cases, Nagpur. Gupta group of cases. 13. We have perused the case records and heard the submissions of the Ld. DR. We have also

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