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

depreciation in the value of foreign exchange currency held by it, on conversion into another currency, such profit or less would ordinarily be trading profit or loss if the foreign exchange currency is held by the assessee on revenue account of a trading asset or as part of circulating capital in the business. But, if on the other hand

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:-

depreciation was claimed in excess has not been undertaken by the Pr. CIT. He had exercised the second option available to him under section 263(1) of the Act by sending the entire matter back to the assessing officer for a fresh assessment. That option, in the considered view of the Court, can be exercised only after

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

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

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 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(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

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

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(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

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

34 and so the conditions mentioned in section 80IB (l)(ii) rw explanation 2 has not been fulfilled. I agree with the contention of the AR of the appellant that value of plant & machinery carried over from one year to another year does not mean that there was a transfer to new business of plant & machinery previously used