DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. AAKAR HOTELS, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147

THE AMRAVATI PEOPLE CO-OP BANK LTD ( NOW MERGED IN THE COSMOS CO-OP BANK LTD),AMARAVATI vs. D.C.I.T. AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMARAVATI

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 309/Nag/2015 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Amravati Peoples Co-Op. Bank Limited (Now Merged In The Cosmos Co-Op. Bank Ltd.) C/O. Cosmos Co-Op Bank Ltd. Jawahar Road, Amravati-444601. Pan : Aaact5899B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Amravati Circle, Amravati. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.G. Gandhi, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Agnes P. Thomas, Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09.05.2022

depreciation allowance, in the following manner, to the extent available" is as under:- Asst. Year Remarks S. Nature of Amount as Amount as No. loss/allowance ( returned (in assessed ( give rupees) in rupees) reference to relevant order) 1. 2002-03 Business loss 28858541 Not available 98748798 2. 2004-05 Business loss 36762850 -Do- 3479468 Total 10,22,28,266/- The assessment

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

147 r/w section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequent to a search which was conducted in RBSSN Group on 24th September 2010, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 153A of the Act on 12th September 2011, in response to which the assessee filed its return of income on 7th May 2012. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer found from the audited

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

147 r/w section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequent to a search which was conducted in RBSSN Group on 24th September 2010, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 153A of the Act on 12th September 2011, in response to which the assessee filed its return of income on 7th May 2012. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer found from the audited

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

147 r/w section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequent to a search which was conducted in RBSSN Group on 24th September 2010, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 153A of the Act on 12th September 2011, in response to which the assessee filed its return of income on 7th May 2012. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer found from the audited

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

147 r/w section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequent to a search which was conducted in RBSSN Group on 24th September 2010, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 153A of the Act on 12th September 2011, in response to which the assessee filed its return of income on 7th May 2012. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer found from the audited

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

147 r/w section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequent to a search which was conducted in RBSSN Group on 24th September 2010, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 153A of the Act on 12th September 2011, in response to which the assessee filed its return of income on 7th May 2012. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer found from the audited

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

147 r/w section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequent to a search which was conducted in RBSSN Group on 24th September 2010, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 153A of the Act on 12th September 2011, in response to which the assessee filed its return of income on 7th May 2012. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer found from the audited

ACIT WARDHA CIRCLE,, WARDHA vs. JAMNALAL SONS PVT LID., WARDHA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 34/Nag/2015 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Wardha Circle, Wardha. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

depreciation disallowed earlier. The Court held that where the material facts relating to these issues were already before the Assessing Officer at the time of the completion of the original assessment, such reopening would amount only to change of opinion. 15. That further in the case of Asteroids Trading & Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT

ACIT WARDHA CIRCLE,, WARDHA vs. JAMNALAL SONS PVT LID., WARDHA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 34/Nag/2015 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Wardha Circle, Wardha. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

depreciation disallowed earlier. The Court held that where the material facts relating to these issues were already before the Assessing Officer at the time of the completion of the original assessment, such reopening would amount only to change of opinion. 15. That further in the case of Asteroids Trading & Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT

DY. CIT- WARDHA CIRCLE,, WARDHA vs. JAMNALAL SONS PVT. LTD.,, WARDHA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 34/Nag/2015 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Wardha Circle, Wardha. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

depreciation disallowed earlier. The Court held that where the material facts relating to these issues were already before the Assessing Officer at the time of the completion of the original assessment, such reopening would amount only to change of opinion. 15. That further in the case of Asteroids Trading & Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT

ACIT WARDHA CIRCLE,, WARDHA vs. JAMNALAL SONS PVT LID., WARDHA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 34/Nag/2015 ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Wardha Circle, Wardha. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

depreciation disallowed earlier. The Court held that where the material facts relating to these issues were already before the Assessing Officer at the time of the completion of the original assessment, such reopening would amount only to change of opinion. 15. That further in the case of Asteroids Trading & Investments (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT

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

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