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. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the addition of Rs.37,50,000/- as regular income of the assessee, ignoring the facts that addition was made

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. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the addition of Rs.37,50,000/- as regular income of the assessee, ignoring the facts that addition was made

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

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

3) of the Act dated 31-12-2008. However he stated that since the claim of deduction u/s 80IB has been enhanced he has considered the same separately. The relevant portion is Para 10 of the Assessment order. The learned AR of the appellant placed on record, order of the Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own case

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

3) of the Act dated 31-12-2008. However he stated that since the claim of deduction u/s 80IB has been enhanced he has considered the same separately. The relevant portion is Para 10 of the Assessment order. The learned AR of the appellant placed on record, order of the Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own case

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

3) of the Act dated 31-12-2008. However he stated that since the claim of deduction u/s 80IB has been enhanced he has considered the same separately. The relevant portion is Para 10 of the Assessment order. The learned AR of the appellant placed on record, order of the Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own case

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

3) of the Act dated 31-12-2008. However he stated that since the claim of deduction u/s 80IB has been enhanced he has considered the same separately. The relevant portion is Para 10 of the Assessment order. The learned AR of the appellant placed on record, order of the Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own case

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

3) of the Act dated 31-12-2008. However he stated that since the claim of deduction u/s 80IB has been enhanced he has considered the same separately. The relevant portion is Para 10 of the Assessment order. The learned AR of the appellant placed on record, order of the Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own case

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

3) of the Act dated 31-12-2008. However he stated that since the claim of deduction u/s 80IB has been enhanced he has considered the same separately. The relevant portion is Para 10 of the Assessment order. The learned AR of the appellant placed on record, order of the Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own case

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

SHREE HINDU SMASHAN SANSTHA,AMRAVATI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2, EXEMPTIONS, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation is allowed in accordance with the provisions of section 11(6) of the Act. 7. As regards the addition of ` 23,32,216, on account of investment in violation of provisions of section 11(5) r/w section 13(1)(d) of the Act, we find that there is no scope of adding back the investment as an income only

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

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 officer disallowed the claim of the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR vs. AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

3 & 4 of the Department are dismissed.”\n5. Since the issue for our adjudication is identical to the issue decided\nabove, consistent with the view taken therein, we dismiss the connected\nground(s) raised by the Revenue by upholding the impugned order passed by\nthe learned CIT(A) for both the years under consideration viz. A.Y. 2011-12\nand

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.5, NAGPUR vs. M/S AVANTHA HOLDINGS LTD.,, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

3 & 4 of the Department are dismissed.”\n5. Since the issue for our adjudication is identical to the issue decided above, consistent with the view taken therein, we dismiss the connected ground(s) raised by the Revenue by upholding the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) for both the years under consideration

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

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

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

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

RAGHAV AGRITECH,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

11,260. The intimation was received by the assessee vide mail on 20/01/2021. The assessee had made payment of ` 2,06,50,000, to the contractor for building construction and has not claimed payment made to contractor as revenue expenditure in its Profit and Loss Account. The Assessing Officer made addition of ` 61,95,000, under section