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

depreciation cannot be allowed as deduction as per the provision of section 11(6) of I.T. Act as double application of income. 2

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

depreciation cannot be allowed as deduction as per the provision of section 11(6) of I.T. Act as double application of income. 2

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

depreciation debited to the profit and loss account can be excluded in terms of clause (i) of the Explanation to sub-section (2) of section 115JB of the Act read with proviso considered the object of inserting clauses (i) to (vii) of the Explanation to the said section. The Supreme Court held that the object of clause

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

depreciation debited to the profit and loss account can be excluded in terms of clause (i) of the Explanation to sub-section (2) of section 115JB of the Act read with proviso considered the object of inserting clauses (i) to (vii) of the Explanation to the said section. The Supreme Court held that the object of clause

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

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

A,C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.- 2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI DHARAMPAL R.AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

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

Section 153A of the Income- tax Act, 1961? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of an agriculture income, amounting Rs. 1,61,800/-. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

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

Section 153A of the Income- tax Act, 1961? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of an agriculture income, amounting Rs. 1,61,800/-. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made

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:-

11 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur replied by the appellant from time to time. The appellant had also appeared personally and filed the detailed replies to all the queries raised and books of accounts were also produced. The Ld. PCIT has failed to specify as to how and on what ground the assessment order is erroneous

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.

section 11 5BBC(3) of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Without prejudice to the above, the assessee humbly submits before your honour that except for a few instances, the Ld. A.O. has not recorded any concrete evidence but has merely casually stated that some of the donors were farmers who denied to have given the donation; some of the donors

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

depreciation of Rs.\n47,53,025/-.\n8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of unsecured loans being unexplained\ncredits Rs. 6,45,38,278/-.\n4\nM/s. Shree Agarwal\nCoal India Pvt. Ltd. & Group Cases\n9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

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

2). The appellant has placed enough evidence to, show that the industrial unit was set up with new plant & machinery and the appellant has only one industrial unit. The AO in his order on Page 20 has stated that the assessee has not submitted the report of audit in Farm 10CCB far claiming deduction u/s 8018 and has therefore violated

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

2). The appellant has placed enough evidence to, show that the industrial unit was set up with new plant & machinery and the appellant has only one industrial unit. The AO in his order on Page 20 has stated that the assessee has not submitted the report of audit in Farm 10CCB far claiming deduction u/s 8018 and has therefore violated

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

2). The appellant has placed enough evidence to, show that the industrial unit was set up with new plant & machinery and the appellant has only one industrial unit. The AO in his order on Page 20 has stated that the assessee has not submitted the report of audit in Farm 10CCB far claiming deduction u/s 8018 and has therefore violated

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

2). The appellant has placed enough evidence to, show that the industrial unit was set up with new plant & machinery and the appellant has only one industrial unit. The AO in his order on Page 20 has stated that the assessee has not submitted the report of audit in Farm 10CCB far claiming deduction u/s 8018 and has therefore violated

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

2). The appellant has placed enough evidence to, show that the industrial unit was set up with new plant & machinery and the appellant has only one industrial unit. The AO in his order on Page 20 has stated that the assessee has not submitted the report of audit in Farm 10CCB far claiming deduction u/s 8018 and has therefore violated

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

2). The appellant has placed enough evidence to, show that the industrial unit was set up with new plant & machinery and the appellant has only one industrial unit. The AO in his order on Page 20 has stated that the assessee has not submitted the report of audit in Farm 10CCB far claiming deduction u/s 8018 and has therefore violated

A,C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.- 2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI DHARAMPAL R.AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

depreciation of Rs.\n47,53,025/-.\n8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of unsecured loans being unexplained\ncredits Rs. 6,45,38,278/-.\n5\nM/s. Shree Agarwal\nCoal India Pvt. Ltd. & Group Cases\n9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

depreciation of Rs.\n47,53,025/-.\n8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of unsecured loans being unexplained\ncredits Rs. 6,45,38,278/-.\n5\nM/s. Shree Agarwal\nCoal India Pvt. Ltd. & Group Cases\n9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned