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

section debars appellant from claiming double application of income vis-à-vis depreciation, if the appellant has already claimed capital expenditure as an application of income. It was submitted as well as demonstrated by the appellant, that in a given year the appellant has only claimed depreciation as an application of income and in the given year also they have

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

section debars appellant from claiming double application of income vis-à-vis depreciation, if the appellant has already claimed capital expenditure as an application of income. It was submitted as well as demonstrated by the appellant, that in a given year the appellant has only claimed depreciation as an application of income and in the given year also they have

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

Section 32(l)(iia) of the Act which is not permissible. 13. Therefore, question no.(I) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant- Revenue.” 20. Therefore, relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in view of the observations of the learned CIT(A), the learned Counsel

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

Section 32(l)(iia) of the Act which is not permissible. 13. Therefore, question no.(I) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant- Revenue.” 20. Therefore, relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in view of the observations of the learned CIT(A), the learned Counsel

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

Section 32(l)(iia) of the Act which is not permissible. 13. Therefore, question no.(I) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant- Revenue.” 20. Therefore, relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in view of the observations of the learned CIT(A), the learned Counsel

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

Section 32(l)(iia) of the Act which is not permissible. 13. Therefore, question no.(I) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant- Revenue.” 20. Therefore, relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in view of the observations of the learned CIT(A), the learned Counsel

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

Section 32(l)(iia) of the Act which is not permissible. 13. Therefore, question no.(I) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant- Revenue.” 20. Therefore, relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in view of the observations of the learned CIT(A), the learned Counsel

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

Section 32(l)(iia) of the Act which is not permissible. 13. Therefore, question no.(I) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant- Revenue.” 20. Therefore, relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in view of the observations of the learned CIT(A), the learned Counsel

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

depreciation debited to the profit and loss account can be excluded in terms of clause (i) of the Explanation to sub-section (2) of section 115JB of the Act read with proviso considered the object of inserting clauses (i) to (vii) of the Explanation to the said section. The Supreme Court held that the object of clause

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

depreciation debited to the profit and loss account can be excluded in terms of clause (i) of the Explanation to sub-section (2) of section 115JB of the Act read with proviso considered the object of inserting clauses (i) to (vii) of the Explanation to the said section. The Supreme Court held that the object of clause

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

Depreciation 237031.00 6455114.65 Investments H 151015.00 Current Assets, Loans & Advances A Inventories I 6061250.00 B Sundry Debtors J 69813542.00 C Cash and Bank Balances K 605920.06 D Other Current Assets L 13197195.26 E Loans and Advances M 29524126.15 119202034.47 125808164.12 36 Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal ITA no.375/Nag./2024 29. It is not clear as to how the Assessing Officer has rightfully

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

29- 12-2017 u/s 143(3) of the Act. In this order following three additions were made: [1] Rs. 12,18,02,228/- on account of disallowance of CSR expenses (discussed in para 3).” [2] Rs,14,89,46,696/- on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 32AC of the Act (discussed in para

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

Section 153A of the Income- tax Act, 1961? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of an agriculture income, amounting Rs. 1,61,800/-. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance 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

Section 153A of the Income- tax Act, 1961? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of an agriculture income, amounting Rs. 1,61,800/-. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made

A,C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.- 2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI DHARAMPAL R.AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

Section 153A of the Income-\ntax Act, 1961?\n2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of an agriculture income, amounting\nRs. 1,61,800/-.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the disallowance made

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

Section 153A of the Income-\ntax Act, 1961?\n2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of an agriculture income, amounting\nRs. 1,61,800/-.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the disallowance made

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

Section 153A of the Income-\ntax Act, 1961?\n2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of an agriculture income, amounting\nRs. 1,61,800/-.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the disallowance 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

Section 153A of the Income-\ntax Act, 1961?\n2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of an agriculture income, amounting\nRs. 1,61,800/-.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the disallowance made