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

143(3) of the Act. 3. Insofar as ground no.1, is concerned, during the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee trust has provided an residential accommodation to the trustee of the trust and has recovered an annual rent of ` 1,20,000, from the trustee of the trust Shri Sachin Agnihotri. The Assessing Officer

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

143(3) of the Act. 3. Insofar as ground no.1, is concerned, during the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee trust has provided an residential accommodation to the trustee of the trust and has recovered an annual rent of ` 1,20,000, from the trustee of the trust Shri Sachin Agnihotri. The Assessing Officer

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

143(3) of the Act. 3. Insofar as ground no.1, is concerned, during the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee trust has provided an residential accommodation to the trustee of the trust and has recovered an annual rent of ` 1,20,000, from the trustee of the trust Shri Sachin Agnihotri. The Assessing Officer

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

143(2) of the Act was issued and served on ITBA. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 06/06/2019. In response to notice issued, the details called for were uploaded. The assessee filed Income Tax Return, Computation of Income, Balance Sheet, Tax Audit Report, etc. Various details were called for electronically vide notices under section

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

143(2) of the Act was issued and served on ITBA. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 06/06/2019. In response to notice issued, the details called for were uploaded. The assessee filed Income Tax Return, Computation of Income, Balance Sheet, Tax Audit Report, etc. Various details were called for electronically vide notices under 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

143(3) r/w CIT(A)–3, 7. A.Y. 2006–07 – By Revenue 30/03/2017 153A Nagpur Thanjavur Commerce Pvt. Ltd. 2. Since all the aforesaid appeals filed by the Revenue pertain to different assessees involving multiple common issues under similar set of facts and circumstances, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these Revenue’s appeals were heard together and are being

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

143(3) r/w CIT(A)–3, 7. A.Y. 2006–07 – By Revenue 30/03/2017 153A Nagpur Thanjavur Commerce Pvt. Ltd. 2. Since all the aforesaid appeals filed by the Revenue pertain to different assessees involving multiple common issues under similar set of facts and circumstances, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these Revenue’s appeals were heard together and are being

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

143(3) r/w 153A CIT(A)-3, Nagpur 2. Since all the aforesaid appeals filed by the Revenue pertain to different assessees involving multiple common issues under similar set of facts and circumstances, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these Revenue's appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this consolidated order. However, in order

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

143(3) r/w 153A CIT(A)-3, Nagpur 2. Since all the aforesaid appeals filed by the Revenue pertain to different assessees involving multiple common issues under similar set of facts and circumstances, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these Revenue's appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this consolidated order. However, in order

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

143(3) r/w 153A CIT(A)-3, Nagpur 2. Since all the aforesaid appeals filed by the Revenue pertain to different assessees involving multiple common issues under similar set of facts and circumstances, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these Revenue's appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this consolidated order. However, in order

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(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(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

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 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