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

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

iii) Charchit Agarwal Vs ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Delhi) 6 Smt. AanjuSaraf 8. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue relating to claim made under section 80IB of the Act has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2005–06, 2006–07 and 2007–08 respectively. Therefore

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

iii) Charchit Agarwal Vs ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Delhi) 6 Smt. AanjuSaraf 8. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue relating to claim made under section 80IB of the Act has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2005–06, 2006–07 and 2007–08 respectively. Therefore

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

iii) Charchit Agarwal Vs ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Delhi) 6 Smt. AanjuSaraf 8. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue relating to claim made under section 80IB of the Act has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2005–06, 2006–07 and 2007–08 respectively. Therefore

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

iii) Charchit Agarwal Vs ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Delhi) 6 Smt. AanjuSaraf 8. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue relating to claim made under section 80IB of the Act has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2005–06, 2006–07 and 2007–08 respectively. Therefore

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

iii) Charchit Agarwal Vs ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Delhi) 6 Smt. AanjuSaraf 8. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue relating to claim made under section 80IB of the Act has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2005–06, 2006–07 and 2007–08 respectively. Therefore

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

iii) Charchit Agarwal Vs ACIT (2009) 34 SOT 348 (Delhi) 6 Smt. AanjuSaraf 8. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue relating to claim made under section 80IB of the Act has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2005–06, 2006–07 and 2007–08 respectively. Therefore

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:-

1) was justified -Held, yes 26 27 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur Even jurisdictional Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT vs. NiravModi [2017] 390 ITR 292(Bom) (HC), has held that the appellant had received gifts from donors located abroad. The gifts were received in previous years relevant to Assessment Years

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

32,361/- installed at office premises is considered as Plant & Machinery eligible for deduction u/s 32AC instead of Rescue Equipments at Rs.8,78,682/- which has been remained to be considered as eligible for deduction u/s 32AC. The assessee has given details of rescue equipment purchased at Rs.8,78,682/-. Perusal of details clearly indicates that Plant & Machinery being Rescue

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

1,28,59,961 to ` 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

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

32,518 5. Rent of property at London 1,16,86,172 Total 4,33,70,349 15 ACIT, CIRCLE-7, NAGPUR VS M/s. Newquest Corporation Ltd. (Now known as Avantha Holdings Ltd) During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked by the AO to explain the allowability of the above expenditure for which the assessee filed

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

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

depreciation allowance, in the following manner, to the extent available" is as under:- Asst. Year Remarks S. Nature of Amount as Amount as No. loss/allowance ( returned (in assessed ( give rupees) in rupees) reference to relevant order) 1. 2002-03 Business loss 28858541 Not available 98748798 2. 2004-05 Business loss 36762850 -Do- 3479468 Total 10,22,28,266/- The assessment