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

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 of the trust. The depreciation cannot be allowed as deduction

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

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 of the trust. The depreciation cannot be allowed as deduction

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

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 of the trust. The depreciation cannot be allowed as deduction

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

25% of the profit of the eligible business.” However, Ld AO has not pointed out any mistake in the enhancement claim or has bring out anything contrary to the claim, except only has pointed out the fact that claim has been enhanced. Ld AO has examined the issue in its entirety and has rejected the claim of assessee for deduction

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

25% of the profit of the eligible business.” However, Ld AO has not pointed out any mistake in the enhancement claim or has bring out anything contrary to the claim, except only has pointed out the fact that claim has been enhanced. Ld AO has examined the issue in its entirety and has rejected the claim of assessee for deduction

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

25% of the profit of the eligible business.” However, Ld AO has not pointed out any mistake in the enhancement claim or has bring out anything contrary to the claim, except only has pointed out the fact that claim has been enhanced. Ld AO has examined the issue in its entirety and has rejected the claim of assessee for deduction

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

25% of the profit of the eligible business.” However, Ld AO has not pointed out any mistake in the enhancement claim or has bring out anything contrary to the claim, except only has pointed out the fact that claim has been enhanced. Ld AO has examined the issue in its entirety and has rejected the claim of assessee for deduction

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

25% of the profit of the eligible business.” However, Ld AO has not pointed out any mistake in the enhancement claim or has bring out anything contrary to the claim, except only has pointed out the fact that claim has been enhanced. Ld AO has examined the issue in its entirety and has rejected the claim of assessee for deduction

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

25% of the profit of the eligible business.” However, Ld AO has not pointed out any mistake in the enhancement claim or has bring out anything contrary to the claim, except only has pointed out the fact that claim has been enhanced. Ld AO has examined the issue in its entirety and has rejected the claim of assessee for deduction

ACIT ,CIRCLE (EXEMPTION ),NAGPUR , NAGPUR vs. M/S SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL ,AMRAVAI , AMRAVATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Acit, Vs. M/S. Sipnashikshan Prasarak Mandal Circle (Exemption), Badnera Road Amravati Amravati Pan No.:Aacts 1266 J Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shripiyushkolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shrihimeshdemble (Ca) Date Of Hearing: 26/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-4, Nagpur Dated 27/03/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 Wherein The Department Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

25 letters sent under Sec 136(6) three persons have denied giving such donations and further field enquiries have been conducted and in case of 29 donors denials/ discrepancies were found. I find that even in these 29 cases enquiries were conducted behind appellant’s back and no opportunity of filing further evidence or cross examination was provided

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

25(a) of the audit report inform No.3CD, the details given under the head “details of brought forward loss or depreciation allowance, in the following manner to the extent available is as under: S. No. Asst. Year Nature of Amount as Amount as Remarks loss/allowance ( returned (in assessed ( in rupees) rupees) give reference 5 The Amravati Peoples Co-Op. Bank

SHARDA ISPAT LIMITED ,NAGPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

25-01-2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nagpur [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2007-08. 2 ITA No. 69/NAG/2019, A.Y. 2007-08 2. The assessee raised two grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in confirming the order of AO in disallowing

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

THE BULDHANA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD ,BULDHANA vs. DCIT, AKOLA CIRCLE , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation at ` 21,22,803. In this return of income, brought forward loss for the assessment year 2008–09 is claimed at ` 5,01,70,769, and for the assessment year 2009-10 at ` 2,61,43,904, and also claimed carried forward loss for the assessment year 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. The income for the assessment

MOONLIGHT STUDIO,NAGPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED

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

25,177. The same consists of unabsorbed business loss of ` 13,69,203 and unabsorbed depreciation of ` 2,55,974. The due date of return was 17/10/2016. However, the assessee stated that due to heavy traffic on ITR e-filing site (incometaxindiaefiling. gov.in) and slow uploading, though the entire return was ready the same could not be uploaded before

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:-

25 26 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur to be proved by reference to the assessment order only. It cannot be argued that there is some possibility of the assessment order being challenged or revised in appeal and, therefore, on account of this contingency, the order becomes prejudicial to the interests of the revenue." Hon'ble Apex Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON vs. RENUKA OIL INDUSTRIES, KHAMGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

25,71,992 (20%) on account of cash expenses paid to labours. The assessee being not satisfied with the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, went in appeal before the first appellate authority challenging the aforesaid three issues. 3 Renuka Oil Industries ITA no.390/Nag./2024 4. The learned CIT(A), insofar as claim of deduction under section 35AD

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

depreciation allowable thereon as per the prescribed rules and procedures under the Income-tax Act. In the instant case, indisputably, 25 ACIT, CIRCLE-7, NAGPUR VS M/s. Newquest Corporation Ltd. (Now known as Avantha Holdings Ltd) advertisement expenses towards brand building are revenue in nature nor any material has been placed before us by the Revenue, suggesting that any tangible