DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. AAKAR HOTELS, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon'Ble & Shri K.M. Roy, Hon'Ble 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 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

depreciation of Rs. 47,53,025/-. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of unsecured loans being unexplained credits Rs. 6,45,38,278/-. 5 M/s. Shree Agarwal Coal India Pvt. Ltd.& Group Cases 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

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

depreciation of Rs. 47,53,025/-. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of unsecured loans being unexplained credits Rs. 6,45,38,278/-. 5 M/s. Shree Agarwal Coal India Pvt. Ltd.& Group Cases 9. 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

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

depreciation of Rs. 47,53,025/-. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of unsecured loans being unexplained credits Rs. 6,45,38,278/-. 5 M/s. Shree Agarwal Coal India Pvt. Ltd. & Group Cases 9. 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

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

depreciation of Rs. 47,53,025/-. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of unsecured loans being unexplained credits Rs. 6,45,38,278/-. 5 M/s. Shree Agarwal Coal India Pvt. Ltd. & Group Cases 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

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

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

depreciation of Rs. 47,53,025/-. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of unsecured loans being unexplained credits Rs. 6,45,38,278/-. 5 M/s. Shree Agarwal Coal India Pvt. Ltd. & Group Cases 9. 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

depreciation is covered by the Co–ordinate Bench decision rendered in assessee’s own case ITA no.114/Nag./2009 (AY 2004-05) and decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High court assessee’s sister concern’s case in M/s. R.B. Seth, Shriram Narsingdas (supra) wherein the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The facts

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

depreciation is covered by the Co–ordinate Bench decision rendered in assessee’s own case ITA no.114/Nag./2009 (AY 2004-05) and decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High court assessee’s sister concern’s case in M/s. R.B. Seth, Shriram Narsingdas (supra) wherein the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The facts

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

depreciation is covered by the Co–ordinate Bench decision rendered in assessee’s own case ITA no.114/Nag./2009 (AY 2004-05) and decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High court assessee’s sister concern’s case in M/s. R.B. Seth, Shriram Narsingdas (supra) wherein the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The facts

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

depreciation is covered by the Co–ordinate Bench decision rendered in assessee’s own case ITA no.114/Nag./2009 (AY 2004-05) and decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High court assessee’s sister concern’s case in M/s. R.B. Seth, Shriram Narsingdas (supra) wherein the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The facts

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

depreciation is covered by the Co–ordinate Bench decision rendered in assessee’s own case ITA no.114/Nag./2009 (AY 2004-05) and decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High court assessee’s sister concern’s case in M/s. R.B. Seth, Shriram Narsingdas (supra) wherein the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The facts

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

depreciation is covered by the Co–ordinate Bench decision rendered in assessee’s own case ITA no.114/Nag./2009 (AY 2004-05) and decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High court assessee’s sister concern’s case in M/s. R.B. Seth, Shriram Narsingdas (supra) wherein the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The facts

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 132(4) is concerned, no doubt the disclosure or admission made u/s.132(4) during search proceedings is an admissible evidence but not a conclusive one. The presumption of admissibility of evidence is rebuttable one and if an assessee is able to demonstrate with the help of some material that such admission was either mistaken, untrue or under misconception

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 132(4) is concerned, no doubt the disclosure or admission made u/s.132(4) during search proceedings is an admissible evidence but not a conclusive one. The presumption of admissibility of evidence is rebuttable one and if an assessee is able to demonstrate with the help of some material that such admission was either mistaken, untrue or under misconception

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 132(4) is concerned, no doubt the disclosure or admission made u/s.132(4) during search proceedings is an admissible evidence but not a conclusive one. The presumption of admissibility of evidence is rebuttable one and if an assessee is able to demonstrate with the help of some material that such admission was either mistaken, untrue or under misconception

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 132(4) is concerned, no doubt the disclosure or admission made u/s.132(4) during search proceedings is an admissible evidence but not a conclusive one. The presumption of admissibility of evidence is rebuttable one and if an assessee is able to demonstrate with the help of some material that such admission was either mistaken, untrue or under misconception

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 132(4) is concerned, no doubt the disclosure or admission made u/s.132(4) during search proceedings is an admissible evidence but not a conclusive one. The presumption of admissibility of evidence is rebuttable one and if an assessee is able to demonstrate with the help of some material that such admission was either mistaken, untrue or under misconception

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 132(4) is concerned, no doubt the disclosure or admission made u/s.132(4) during search proceedings is an admissible evidence but not a conclusive one. The presumption of admissibility of evidence is rebuttable one and if an assessee is able to demonstrate with the help of some material that such admission was either mistaken, untrue or under misconception

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 132(4) is concerned, no doubt the disclosure or admission made u/s.132(4) during search proceedings is an admissible evidence but not a conclusive one. The presumption of admissibility of evidence is rebuttable one and if an assessee is able to demonstrate with the help of some material that such admission was either mistaken, untrue or under misconception