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 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 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

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

VISHAL KISHORILAL JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

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

144. 6. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal by holding as under:– “6.1.6 Assessing Officer noted in the case of the appellant that Appellant did not disclose the relevant transactions in his ITR and found that income declared by the appellant did not commensurate with the transactions done by the appellant during the year under

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation under section 32 of the Act and as a consequence to this decision the Legislature had to amend the provisions of section 32 with effect from 1-4-1997 by using the expression “owned wholly or partly”. Since no such words are expressively mentioned in Section 54F, in our considered view the word “own” in section 54F would include

DREAMZ INFRASTRUCTURE ,AMRAVATI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation as per Income Tax Act. The addition made by AO is without affording any opportunity to the assessee. The same be deleted. 3. That the C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 80,69,310/- at 5% on the allegation that amount is spent in respect of land contribution by 7 partners is unjust. In fact

TAJSHREE MOTORS PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roytajshree Motors Pvt. Ltd., Dict/Acit, Circle– 4, 17, Tajshree Estate, Vs Nagpur Nandanwan, Nagpur. Pan : Aacct 9187 G Assessee Respondent

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 25.03.2023 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee-company did not choose to file the return of income for AY 2018-19. Based

MAYUR KHARA,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

144. The AO relying on CBDT Instruction No. 3/2018 dated 20/08/2018 has claimed to have issued summons u/s 131 and notices u/s 133(6) and mentioned the same in the assessment order. However, none of the summons or the notices have been uploaded on the system inspite of specific direction given in the said Instruction no. 3/2018 as submitted

ASSTT. CIT, CIR- 7, NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEWQUEST CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

144 ITR 280 Delhi) answered the question as whether the expenditure incurred by the assessed in sponsoring a football tournament was an allowable deduction under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was held as under: "For the purpose of satisfying the test whether, the expenditure is in connection with the business it is not necessary that

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

144 r.w.s. 147 at Rs.11,70,858/-, denying the benefit of deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Denial of the deduction was based on his interpretation of section 80A(5), which stipulates a condition of filing return of income for claiming deduction, inter alia, under Part C of Chapter VI-A of the Act. The assessee challenged the denial

GIRAD GRAMIN SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,WARDHA vs. ITO WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

144 of the Act disallowed the deduction claimed to the tune of Rs.5,81,751/- u/s 80P of the Act and also made the addition of Rs.487/- on account of difference in depreciation and the addition of Rs.48,360/- on account of disallowance claimed as deduction by the Assessee. 3 M/s. Girad Gramin Sahakari Pat Sanstha 6. The Assessee, being

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, NAGPUR vs. SONU MONU AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, Department's appeal stands dismissed

depreciation has to be allowed a twice the normal rate". 12. For manufacturing/producing of mushrooms, one building is essentially needed in which the mushrooms are manufactured in racks under certain degree controlled temperature and in the absence of sunlight. This crop cannot be grown on open land under the sunlight and under normal weather conditions. Therefore, it is literally manufactured