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 80P. Thus, the deduction

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

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 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted as noted hereinabove. Thus

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 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted as noted hereinabove. Thus

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

22. Accordingly, nothing merits in the Revenue’s submission that entire exemption under section 11 of the Act should be revoked. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to grant exemption under section 11 of the Act to the assessee trust as already directed by the learned CIT(A). Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, ground

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

22. Accordingly, nothing merits in the Revenue’s submission that entire exemption under section 11 of the Act should be revoked. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to grant exemption under section 11 of the Act to the assessee trust as already directed by the learned CIT(A). Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, ground

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

22. Accordingly, nothing merits in the Revenue’s submission that entire exemption under section 11 of the Act should be revoked. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to grant exemption under section 11 of the Act to the assessee trust as already directed by the learned CIT(A). Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, ground

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

2(22)(e) of Rs. 8,75,36,654/-. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 47,53,025/-. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made

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

2(22)(e) of Rs. 8,75,36,654/-. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 47,53,025/-. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made

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

2(22)(e) of Rs. 8,75,36,654/-. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 47,53,025/-. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made

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

2(22)(e) of Rs. 8,75,36,654/-. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 47,53,025/-. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made

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

2(22)(e) of Rs. 8,75,36,654/-. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 47,53,025/-. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made

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:-

22 taxmann.com 309/210 Taxman 145 (Mag.)/345 ITR 135 (Delhi) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of provision of Section 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd. [2014] 44 taxmann.com 138/225 Taxman 135 (Mag.)/361

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

2,74,00,000 and whether or not the learned CIT(A) was correct in granting relief under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act when the same is prospective effective from 1st April 2013. This issue has been raised by the Revenue in its appeal being ITA no.437/Nag./2016 (ground no.6 & 7), Revenue’s appeal being ITAno.438/Nag./2016 (ground

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

2,74,00,000 and whether or not the learned CIT(A) was correct in granting relief under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act when the same is prospective effective from 1st April 2013. This issue has been raised by the Revenue in its appeal being ITA no.437/Nag./2016 (ground no.6 & 7), Revenue’s appeal being ITAno.438/Nag./2016 (ground

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

2,74,00,000 and whether or not the learned CIT(A) was correct in granting relief under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act when the same is prospective effective from 1st April 2013. This issue has been raised by the Revenue in its appeal being ITA no.437/Nag./2016 (ground no.6 & 7), Revenue’s appeal being ITAno.438/Nag./2016 (ground

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

2,74,00,000 and whether or not the learned CIT(A) was correct in granting relief under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act when the same is prospective effective from 1st April 2013. This issue has been raised by the Revenue in its appeal being ITA no.437/Nag./2016 (ground no.6 & 7), Revenue’s appeal being ITAno.438/Nag./2016 (ground

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

2,74,00,000 and whether or not the learned CIT(A) was correct in granting relief under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act when the same is prospective effective from 1st April 2013. This issue has been raised by the Revenue in its appeal being ITA no.437/Nag./2016 (ground no.6 & 7), Revenue’s appeal being ITAno.438/Nag./2016 (ground

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

2,74,00,000 and whether or not the learned CIT(A) was correct in granting relief under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act when the same is prospective effective from 1st April 2013. This issue has been raised by the Revenue in its appeal being ITA no.437/Nag./2016 (ground no.6 & 7), Revenue’s appeal being ITAno.438/Nag./2016 (ground