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

ii). 12. Whenever the exemption under section 11 is to be denied the income of the trust is to be computed as per the specific provisions of section 164(2) provided in the statute, which are reproduced below for ready reference:– ―164(2) In the case of relevant income which is derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable

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

ii). 12. Whenever the exemption under section 11 is to be denied the income of the trust is to be computed as per the specific provisions of section 164(2) provided in the statute, which are reproduced below for ready reference:– ―164(2) In the case of relevant income which is derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable

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

ii) genuineness of the transaction; and (iii) credit-worthiness of the creditor. 14. In Pr. CIT v. Veedhata Towers (P) Ltd. [2018] 403 ITR 415 (Bom), this court has held that assessee is only required to explain the source of the credit. There is no requirement under the law to explain the source of the source. In the instant case

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

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 on account of unsecured loans being unexplained credits Rs. 6,45,38,278/-. 5 M/s. Shree Agarwal Coal India Pvt. Ltd.& Group Cases 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

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

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 on account of unsecured loans being unexplained credits Rs. 6,45,38,278/-. 5 M/s. Shree Agarwal Coal India Pvt. Ltd.& Group Cases 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

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 and as a consequence to this decision the Legislature had to amend the provisions of section 32 with effect from 1-4-1997 by using the expression “owned wholly or partly”. Since no such words are expressively mentioned in Section 54F, in our considered view the word “own” in section 54F would include

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

ii) rw explanation 2 has not been fulfilled. I agree with the contention of the AR of the appellant that value of plant & machinery carried over from one year to another year does not mean that there was a transfer to new business of plant & machinery previously used far any purpose as contemplated by the said provision of section

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

ii) rw explanation 2 has not been fulfilled. I agree with the contention of the AR of the appellant that value of plant & machinery carried over from one year to another year does not mean that there was a transfer to new business of plant & machinery previously used far any purpose as contemplated by the said provision of section

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

ii) rw explanation 2 has not been fulfilled. I agree with the contention of the AR of the appellant that value of plant & machinery carried over from one year to another year does not mean that there was a transfer to new business of plant & machinery previously used far any purpose as contemplated by the said provision of section

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

ii) rw explanation 2 has not been fulfilled. I agree with the contention of the AR of the appellant that value of plant & machinery carried over from one year to another year does not mean that there was a transfer to new business of plant & machinery previously used far any purpose as contemplated by the said provision of section

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

ii) rw explanation 2 has not been fulfilled. I agree with the contention of the AR of the appellant that value of plant & machinery carried over from one year to another year does not mean that there was a transfer to new business of plant & machinery previously used far any purpose as contemplated by the said provision of section

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

ii) rw explanation 2 has not been fulfilled. I agree with the contention of the AR of the appellant that value of plant & machinery carried over from one year to another year does not mean that there was a transfer to new business of plant & machinery previously used far any purpose as contemplated by the said provision of section

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

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

depreciation of Rs.\n47,53,025/-.\n8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of unsecured loans being unexplained\ncredits Rs. 6,45,38,278/-.\n5\nM/s. Shree Agarwal\nCoal India Pvt. Ltd. & Group Cases\n9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

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

depreciation of Rs.\n47,53,025/-.\n8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of unsecured loans being unexplained\ncredits Rs. 6,45,38,278/-.\n5\nM/s. Shree Agarwal\nCoal India Pvt. Ltd. & Group Cases\n9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

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

depreciation of Rs.\n47,53,025/-.\n8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of unsecured loans being unexplained\ncredits Rs. 6,45,38,278/-.\n5\nM/s. Shree Agarwal\nCoal India Pvt. Ltd. & Group Cases\n9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

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

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:-

ii. He/She may consider any order passed by the Assessing Officer as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. This is 25 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur exercised by calling for and examining the record available at this stage. iii. If after calling for and examining the records the Commissioner considers that

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

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 and selected for scrutiny. The assessment was completed on a total loss of ` (–) 2,44,14,471, by making addition of ` 2,91,38,000, on account of deduction of excess overdue provision

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 35AD(4), not disputing the factum or quantum (except disallowance of construction expenses of Rs 1.90.70,349 discussed in succeeding paragraphs) of investment in construction of the warehouse by the appellant and its in principle eligibility for deduction