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

18 is dismissed. ITA no.336/Nag./2023 Revenue’s appeal – A.Y. 2018–19 25. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as follows:– ―1. Ground on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing the depreciation of Rs.5,57,40,754/- when the claim of depreciation on assets, already applied against the receipts

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

18 is dismissed. ITA no.336/Nag./2023 Revenue’s appeal – A.Y. 2018–19 25. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as follows:– ―1. Ground on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing the depreciation of Rs.5,57,40,754/- when the claim of depreciation on assets, already applied against the receipts

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

18 is dismissed. ITA no.336/Nag./2023 Revenue’s appeal – A.Y. 2018–19 25. The grounds raised by the Revenue are as follows:– ―1. Ground on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT(A) erred in allowing the depreciation of Rs.5,57,40,754/- when the claim of depreciation on assets, already applied against the receipts

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

18. The learned Departmental representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue relating to claim made in respect of additional depreciation has been squarely decided by Hon’ble Bombay High court in assessee’s 14 Smt. AanjuSaraf sister concern’s case in M/s. R.B. Seth, Shriram

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

18. The learned Departmental representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue relating to claim made in respect of additional depreciation has been squarely decided by Hon’ble Bombay High court in assessee’s 14 Smt. AanjuSaraf sister concern’s case in M/s. R.B. Seth, Shriram

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

18. The learned Departmental representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue relating to claim made in respect of additional depreciation has been squarely decided by Hon’ble Bombay High court in assessee’s 14 Smt. AanjuSaraf sister concern’s case in M/s. R.B. Seth, Shriram

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

18. The learned Departmental representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue relating to claim made in respect of additional depreciation has been squarely decided by Hon’ble Bombay High court in assessee’s 14 Smt. AanjuSaraf sister concern’s case in M/s. R.B. Seth, Shriram

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

18. The learned Departmental representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue relating to claim made in respect of additional depreciation has been squarely decided by Hon’ble Bombay High court in assessee’s 14 Smt. AanjuSaraf sister concern’s case in M/s. R.B. Seth, Shriram

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

18. The learned Departmental representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. 19. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue relating to claim made in respect of additional depreciation has been squarely decided by Hon’ble Bombay High court in assessee’s 14 Smt. AanjuSaraf sister concern’s case in M/s. R.B. Seth, Shriram

SHREE HINDU SMASHAN SANSTHA,AMRAVATI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2, EXEMPTIONS, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

18. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. That considering the facts of the case, the learned CIT (appeals) erred in confirming disallowance of claim of depreciation at Rs.810408/-. The disallowance made is improper, unjust and deserves to be cancelled. 2. That considering the facts of the case the learned the learned CIT (appeals) erred

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

18,915, under the normal provisions of Minimum Alternate Tax. 5. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Notice under section 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

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

18,915, under the normal provisions of Minimum Alternate Tax. 5. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Notice under section 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AKOLA CIRCLE , AKOLA vs. THE BULDHANA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LIMITED , BULDHANA

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

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

depreciation of ` 32,80,263. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on 11/01/2012 and selected for scrutiny. The assessment was made on total loss of ` 2,44,14,471, by making addition of ` 2,91,38,000, on account of deduction of excess overdue provision

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

18. The loans repaid subsequently cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act following the ratio of above legal proposition. However, exact quantification of amount repaid is subject to factual verification. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the summary as contained in Page–244 to 246 of the Paper Book furnished by the assessee

VASANT CO-OP SHETKARI GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY LTD.,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 29/Nag/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Vasant Co-Op. Shetkari Ginning & Pressing Factory Limited; At. Yavatmal Road, Wani, Tq. Wani, Dist. Yavatmal-440 010 Pan : Aaaat1439M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pravin Gandhi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale, Dr

section 263 of the IT Act, 1961. 3) Assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 3 The Vasant Co-Op. Shetkari Ginning & Pressing Factory Limited Vs. Pr. CIT 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of cotton ginning and pressing had e-filed its return of income

TERRA INFRA DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

18, emanating against penalty order dated 16/02/2022, passed u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. The order passed by CIT(A) is without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard and is in violation of principles of natural justice. Dismissal of grounds is unjustified and unwarranted

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:-

18 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur deduction on the identifiable export profits. The Revenue admitted that the AO’s view was a possible view, but stated that the AO had not applied his mind in computing the deduction. The Bombay High Court held that it cannot be said that the AO had not applied his mind while

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

depreciation, it clearly indicates the addition is made with the prejudice and unlawful way and therefore needs to be deleted. 18. Further not withstanding anything mentioned in above para, even otherwise, if the expenses on purchase of machines are disallowed, it would ultimately result in increase in gross total income, which is completely deductible under section

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

18,863/- u/s 80P of the Act. (vi). For A.Yr.2006-07, the return of income was filed on 31.10.2006 declaring nil income after claiming deduction u/s.80P of Rs.28,39,640/-. As per item No.25(a) of the audit report in Form No.3CD, the details given under the head "Details of brought forward loss or depreciation allowance, in the following