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. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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/-.\n4\nM/s. Shree Agarwal\nCoal India Pvt. Ltd. & Group Cases\n9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

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

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 time-to-time and submitted the documents as and when called for. 3. The AO asked the appellant to furnish computation of Income, Audit Report

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 claimed by it. The assessee being aggrieved filed appeal

RAVINDRA MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

143 r/w section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned First Appellate Authority was justified in endorsing the addition made under section 68 of Rs.5,20,84,000/-. Specifically in the light

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

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