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

143(3) dated 31/12/2008. The claim was enhanced to Rs 4,97,80,842/- by the assessee due to arithmetic error in calculating deduction at 25% of the profit of the eligible business. The AO has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act because it was made in the assessment order u/s.143 (3) of the Act dated

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

143(3) dated 31/12/2008. The claim was enhanced to Rs 4,97,80,842/- by the assessee due to arithmetic error in calculating deduction at 25% of the profit of the eligible business. The AO has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act because it was made in the assessment order u/s.143 (3) of the Act dated

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

143(3) dated 31/12/2008. The claim was enhanced to Rs 4,97,80,842/- by the assessee due to arithmetic error in calculating deduction at 25% of the profit of the eligible business. The AO has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act because it was made in the assessment order u/s.143 (3) of the Act dated

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

143(3) dated 31/12/2008. The claim was enhanced to Rs 4,97,80,842/- by the assessee due to arithmetic error in calculating deduction at 25% of the profit of the eligible business. The AO has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act because it was made in the assessment order u/s.143 (3) of the Act dated

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

143(3) dated 31/12/2008. The claim was enhanced to Rs 4,97,80,842/- by the assessee due to arithmetic error in calculating deduction at 25% of the profit of the eligible business. The AO has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act because it was made in the assessment order u/s.143 (3) of the Act dated

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

143(3) dated 31/12/2008. The claim was enhanced to Rs 4,97,80,842/- by the assessee due to arithmetic error in calculating deduction at 25% of the profit of the eligible business. The AO has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s.80IB of the Act because it was made in the assessment order u/s.143 (3) of the Act dated

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

143(1a) of the Act on the ground that TDS on payment of ` 2,06,50,000, to contractor for building construction has not been deducted and hence 30% of sum paid is disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) though the assessee had disallowed ` 3,09,750, being 30% of depreciation

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

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

143(3) r/w 153A First Appellate Authority CIT(A)-3, Nagpur CIT(A)-3, Nagpur CIT(A)-3, Nagpur CIT(A)-3, Nagpur CIT(A)-3, Nagpur CIT(A)-3, Nagpur CIT(A)-3, Nagpur 3 M/s. Shree Agarwal Coal India Pvt. Ltd. & Group Cases 2. Since all the aforesaid appeals filed by the Revenue pertain to different assessees involving

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

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(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 7 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(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 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

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