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

depreciation on windmill of Rs. 2,74,00,000 and whether or not the learned CIT(A) was correct in granting relief under section 32

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

depreciation on windmill of Rs. 2,74,00,000 and whether or not the learned CIT(A) was correct in granting relief under section 32

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

depreciation on windmill of Rs. 2,74,00,000 and whether or not the learned CIT(A) was correct in granting relief under section 32

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

depreciation on windmill of Rs. 2,74,00,000 and whether or not the learned CIT(A) was correct in granting relief under section 32

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

depreciation under Section 32 of the Act. Because of this judgment, the legislature had to amend the provisions of Section

ZIM LABORATORIES LIMITED ,NAGPUR vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), 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. 99/Nag/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Zim Laboratories Ltd. Ground Floor, Sadodaya Gyan, Nelson Square, Opp. Nadt, Nagpur-440 013. Pan : Aaacz0200E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent

32(1)(iia) of the Act qua the air handling system that was stated to have been purchased from M/s. Real Traders, a bogus concern, despite the fact that he had disallowed its claim for depreciation in respect of the aforesaid machinery, had thus rendered the order passed by him under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 153A, dated 8 Zim Laboratories

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

depreciation as an application of income. Consequently, nothing warrants us to disturb the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, ground no.1, raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 32. The ground no.2, relates to the addition of ` 37,50,000, on account of undisclosed income under section

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

depreciation as an application of income. Consequently, nothing warrants us to disturb the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, ground no.1, raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 32. The ground no.2, relates to the addition of ` 37,50,000, on account of undisclosed income under section

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

depreciation as an application of income. Consequently, nothing warrants us to disturb the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, ground no.1, raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 32. The ground no.2, relates to the addition of ` 37,50,000, on account of undisclosed income under section

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

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

32,216 under section 11(5) of the Act made by Assessing Officer holding that there is contravention of section 11(5) of the Act on account of investment in fixed deposits with NBFC. Besides this, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of claim of depreciation

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 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

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

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

32 Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal ITA no.375/Nag./2024 disallowance of interest on borrowed capital is unjustified-ITO v. Naresh Fabrics [2002] 75 TTJ (Jodh.) 386. 24. The principles enunciated in various decisions are that if there are sufficient funds on a particular date to cover the advance, merely because the assessee has also taken some loan, it cannot be attributed that

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

depreciation alternatively allowable u/s 32 on the capital expenditure incurred by the appellant on construction of the Warehouse in accordance with section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF JNCOME TAX, CIRCEL-3 , NAGPUR vs. M/S. ACC NIHON CASTING LT, NAGPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

depreciation brought forward as on 1/4/1997 could be set off against the business income or income under any other head for AY 1997-98 and seven subsequent AYs. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Nagpur has erred in interpreting the amended provisions of section 32

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, NAGPUR vs. SONU MONU AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, Department's appeal stands dismissed

32 ITR\n466]. Even the explanation 3 under section 2(1A) is not of any help to the\nassessee as no operations are carried out by it on land or in soil. Use of soil at\na subsequent stage in the operations cannot be said to be carrying out of basic\noperations in the soil/land as discussed in the judgment

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:-

32 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur recorded is erroneous and which is also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In latter cases, the CIT has to examine the order of the Assessing Officer on merits or the decision taken by the Assessing Officer on merits and then hold and form an opinion on merits that