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

139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on 29/11/2017, declaring gross total income at ` Economic Explosives Ltd. ITA no.177/Nag./2022 ITA no.242/Nag./2023 20,85,63,863, under normal provisions and ` 56,35,18,915, under the normal provisions of Minimum Alternate Tax. 5. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Notice under section

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

139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on 29/11/2017, declaring gross total income at ` Economic Explosives Ltd. ITA no.177/Nag./2022 ITA no.242/Nag./2023 20,85,63,863, under normal provisions and ` 56,35,18,915, under the normal provisions of Minimum Alternate Tax. 5. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Notice under section

KRUSHI VIBHAG KARMCHARI VRUND SAHAKARI PATH SANSTHA MARYADIT ,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Krushi Vibhag Karmchari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Vrund Sahakari Pat Sanstha Wardha Maryadit Bajaj Building, Krushna Nagar, Wardha, Maharashtra – 442001 Pan: Aacak6196N Appellant Respondent

139(1) only. Ex consequenti, the contention that since section 80P is not covered under section 80AC, the deduction under this section becomes automatically allowable without 7 Krushi Vibhag Karmchari Vrund Sah Pat Sanstha Maryadit adhering to the requirement of section 80A(5), is bereft of force and hence dismissed. 10. Now I advert to the requirements of section

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

1,27,653/-. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of Rs. 4,77,67,712/-. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account

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

1,27,653/-. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of Rs. 4,77,67,712/-. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account

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

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

1,27,653/-.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of Rs.\n4,77,67,712/-.\n6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account

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

1,27,653/-.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of Rs.\n4,77,67,712/-.\n6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account

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

1,27,653/-.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of Rs.\n4,77,67,712/-.\n6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account

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

139(1) on 25/11/2014 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. 2. The case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice U/s. 143(2) was issued and served upon the appellant. During the assessment proceedings, the counsel fo the appellant, Shri Kailash M. Jogani, Chartered Accountat and Authorised Representative (AR) of the appellant attended the proceedings from

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

1,27,653/-.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of Rs.\n4,77,67,712/-.\n6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account

VASANT CO-OP SHETKARI GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY LTD.,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 29/Nag/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Vasant Co-Op. Shetkari Ginning & Pressing Factory Limited; At. Yavatmal Road, Wani, Tq. Wani, Dist. Yavatmal-440 010 Pan : Aaaat1439M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pravin Gandhi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale, Dr

depreciation @5% was claimed by it. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations not being able to persuade ourselves to uphold the view taken by the Pr. CIT, i.e, as regards the entitlement of the assessee towards indexation of cost of acquisition of the property in question, i.e., land admeasuring 29,228.79 Sq. Mtrs, thus, set-aside his order

DCIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR vs. M/S TRISTER RETAIL CONCEPTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, department’s appeal stands dismissed

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

139 of the Act on 27/10/2015. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 143(3) of the Act after making addition of ` 4,72,27,468. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of ` 1

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

139(1) which was increased while filing return in response to notice u/s 153A was on account of arithmetical mistake. Therefore, on perusal of various judicial 11 Smt. AanjuSaraf pronouncements as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to such enhancement. 13. With respect to eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80IB

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

139(1) which was increased while filing return in response to notice u/s 153A was on account of arithmetical mistake. Therefore, on perusal of various judicial 11 Smt. AanjuSaraf pronouncements as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to such enhancement. 13. With respect to eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80IB

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

139(1) which was increased while filing return in response to notice u/s 153A was on account of arithmetical mistake. Therefore, on perusal of various judicial 11 Smt. AanjuSaraf pronouncements as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to such enhancement. 13. With respect to eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80IB

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

139(1) which was increased while filing return in response to notice u/s 153A was on account of arithmetical mistake. Therefore, on perusal of various judicial 11 Smt. AanjuSaraf pronouncements as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to such enhancement. 13. With respect to eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80IB

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

139(1) which was increased while filing return in response to notice u/s 153A was on account of arithmetical mistake. Therefore, on perusal of various judicial 11 Smt. AanjuSaraf pronouncements as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to such enhancement. 13. With respect to eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80IB

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

139(1) which was increased while filing return in response to notice u/s 153A was on account of arithmetical mistake. Therefore, on perusal of various judicial 11 Smt. AanjuSaraf pronouncements as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to such enhancement. 13. With respect to eligibility of the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80IB

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

139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") 3 Raghav Agritech declaring total income of ` 6,26,010. The assessee firm is subject to audit and Audited Balance Sheet and Tax Audit Report in Form No.3CD, was also filed with the return of income and is on record of the Department. The learned Asstt. Director of Income Tax, Central