M/S. UNIFUES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.419/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S.Unijules Life Sciences The Assistant Ltd., V Commissioner Of Income B 35/36, Midc Kalmehwar, S Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur – 441501. Nagpur. Pan: Aaacu8032D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Nagpur Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 08.11.2021 Emanating From The Order Under Section 153A R.W.S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 Dated 30.03.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : M/S.Unijules Life Sciences Ltd., [A]

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 08.11.2021 emanating from the order under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, 1961 dated 30.03.2016. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as under : M/s.Unijules Life Sciences Ltd., [A] “1) The Assessment u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) is illegal, invalid and deserves

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation on purchase of assets allegedly held bogus which is illegal, and which deserves to be deleted as per law. 6) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 60,00,000 representing unaccounted income which is illegal, and which

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation on purchase of assets allegedly held bogus which is illegal, and which deserves to be deleted as per law. 7) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 194,04,18,971 representing disallowance of bad debts written

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation on purchase of assets allegedly held bogus which is illegal, and which deserves to be deleted as per law. 7) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 194,04,18,971 representing disallowance of bad debts written

M/S. UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Unijules Life Sciences The Assistant Ltd., V Commissioner Of Income B-35/36, Midc, S Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Kamleshwar, Nagpur. Nagpur – 441501 Pan: Aaacu8032D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Adv.-Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Nagpur Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 08.11.2011 For The A.Y.2012-13 Emanating From The Order Under Section 153A R.W.S 143(3) Of M/S.Unijule Life Sciences Ltd., [A]

250 of the Act, dated 08.11.2011 for the A.Y.2012-13 emanating from the order under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) of M/s.Unijule Life Sciences Ltd., [A] the Act, dated 30.03.2016. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) The Assessment u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) is illegal, invalid and deserves to quashed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT (NAFC)”], for the assessment year 2015-16. Shri Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak vs. ACIT (OSD) ITA no. 368/Nag./2023 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:– “1] Order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal

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

section 250 of the Act. It has also been held in various subsequent case laws that this restriction is not applicable to the appellate authorities and that the appellate authorities can entertain claims made otherwise than by way of return or revised return of income provided the appellate authorities must be satisfied that the claim was bonafide and could

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 124 days in fling the instant appeal, on which the Assessee has claimed that it is located in a small place and its employees are not very well versed with

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR vs. M/S WESTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-2, Nagpur, [“learned CIT”], for the assessment year 2015-16. ACIT Nagpur vrs WCL ITA no.156/Nag./2019 2. The department has raised the following grounds of appeal:– “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR vs. MINERAL EXPLORATION CONSULTANCY LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, Ground No.1, 3 & 4 of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.53/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Deputy M/S.Mineral Corporation Commissioner Of Income V Corporation Limited, Tax, S (Name Changed As Mineral Circle-2, Nagpur. Exploration Consultancy Limited), Dr.Ambedkar Bhawan, 2Nd Floor, High Land Drive Road, Seminary Hills, Nagpur – 440006. Pan: Aabcm9165C Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Ashutosh Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Dated 23.12.2022 For A.Y.2018-19 Passed Under Section 250 Of The M/S.Mineral Corporation Corporation Limited [R]

section 250 of the M/s.Mineral Corporation Corporation Limited [R] Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : Submission of ld.AR : 2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) of the assessee explained that the ld.CIT(A) has decided the assessee’s appeal regarding issue of prior period expenses following the decision of ITAT in assessee’s own case

BUCCS LTD. AND NBC AND JV,BULDHANA vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Act or the same can be amortized by treating it as an allowable business expenditure under the relevant provisions of the Act. As per the previous details of ITR and records available of ITBA. It was observed that the assessee was claiming amortization expenses of Road construction regularly and return income

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S SPACEWOOD FURNISHERS PVT. LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

depreciation 60% on the computer items has been disallowed by the AO by way of order passed under sec. 154 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that originally, the assessment was completed under sec. 143(3) of the Act, which was revised in pursuance to the order passed under sec. 250 of the Act. Section

PREMJEET SINGH,DABHA NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation and related costs for commuting to the office which was not paid separately by the company. The company has paid us for visiting the clients but not for commuting to office. We agree with the proposed adjustment and accept the same for the best interest of the department. However, we hereby request to waive any penalty u/s 270A since

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

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

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

250 1,425 30 Ravindra M Khandelwal HUF 1,15,125 11,513 Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal ITA no.375/Nag./2024 31 Ravindrakumar Harikisanji Chandak 5,167 517 32 S K Udyog 10,920 1,092 33 Sandip Tejpalji Shah 27,191 2,719 34 Sanjay Industries 19,000 1,900 35 Sau. Binti R Bhala