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 69A of the Act. 33. After hearing both the parties

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 69A of the Act. 33. After hearing both the parties

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

34 and so the conditions mentioned in section 80IB (l)(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

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

34 and so the conditions mentioned in section 80IB (l)(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

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

34 and so the conditions mentioned in section 80IB (l)(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

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

34 and so the conditions mentioned in section 80IB (l)(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

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

34 and so the conditions mentioned in section 80IB (l)(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

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

34 and so the conditions mentioned in section 80IB (l)(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

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

depreciation and the addition of Rs.48,360/- on account of disallowance claimed as deduction by the Assessee. 3 M/s. Girad Gramin Sahakari Pat Sanstha 6. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said additions by filing first appeal before the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner, however, despite of affording various opportunities made no compliance. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Addl

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

34 ITR 729) (Cal.); CIT v Pran Jiban Jaitha (52 ITR 108) (Cal.); and Chibbett v Joseph (9 TC 48). Taxability of income and capital receipt: The income of a previous year is always subject to tax in the assessment year. Thus, income is always taxable unless exempted. However, the capital receipt shall not be subject to tax unless expressly

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

34 ITR 729) (Cal.); CIT v Pran Jiban Jaitha (52 ITR 108) (Cal.); and Chibbett v Joseph (9 TC 48). Taxability of income and capital receipt: The income of a previous year is always subject to tax in the assessment year. Thus, income is always taxable unless exempted. However, the capital receipt shall not be subject to tax unless expressly

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

34 Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal ITA no.375/Nag./2024 construction of the language of section 57(iii) of the Act, leads to the conclusions that to bring a case within that section it is not necessary that any income should in fact have been earned as a result of the expenditure. What section 57(iii) of the Act requires is that

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:-

depreciation was claimed in excess has not been undertaken by the Pr. CIT. He had exercised the second option available to him under section 263(1) of the Act by sending the entire matter back to the assessing officer for a fresh assessment. That option, in the considered view of the Court, can be exercised only after

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

ANIRUDHA HARIHAR MANDAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), , NAGPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 390/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Anirudha Harihar Mandal 335, New Nandanwan, Nagpur-440009 Pan: Agopm9294J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

depreciation claimed against additions to plant & machinery (ii) unexplained unsecured loans/credits (iii) unexplained additions to sundry creditors (iv) disallowance of expenses of payment on which TCS claimed (v) disallowance of other expense etc. Whereas, in an appeal, the Ld. NFAC confirmed these additions ex-parte for non-prosecution of appeal by the appellant assessee. 4. Without going into the merits

SHRI MAHESH DEVDUTTA GUPTA,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3),, NAGPUR

In the result, the addition so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

34,619/-instead of Rs. 61,528/- determined by the assessee. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the action of the learned authorities is arbitrary and without any basis. (8) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming and upholding the action of AO in making disallowance

ACIT ,CIRCLE (EXEMPTION ),NAGPUR , NAGPUR vs. M/S SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL ,AMRAVAI , AMRAVATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Acit, Vs. M/S. Sipnashikshan Prasarak Mandal Circle (Exemption), Badnera Road Amravati Amravati Pan No.:Aacts 1266 J Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shripiyushkolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shrihimeshdemble (Ca) Date Of Hearing: 26/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-4, Nagpur Dated 27/03/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 Wherein The Department Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

34 donations amount to Rs. 1,64,000/-. Therefore addition of Rs. 1,64,000/- out of total donation of Rs. 4,05,68,475/- is confirmed and the AO is directed to delete the remaining addition. 15. I have considered the facts of the case, the material on record and judicial precedence relied upon by the applicant and appellant

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

depreciation in the value of foreign exchange currency held by it, on conversion into another currency, such profit or less would ordinarily be trading profit or loss if the foreign exchange currency is held by the assessee on revenue account of a trading asset or as part of circulating capital in the business. But, if on the other hand

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR vs. M/S. BILT GRAPHIC PAPER PRODUCTS LIMITED , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Acit Vs. M/S.Bilt Graphic Paper Products Ltd. Circle-5 First India Place, Tower ‘C’, Mehrauli – Gurgaon Nagpur Road, Gurgaon-Haryana 122 022 Pan No.:Aadcb 2230 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani Adv. 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. This Is An Appeal By Revenue Against Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Nagpur For Assessment Year 2011-12 Dated 30.03.2017 In Appeal No Cit(A)-4/59/15-16. Grounds Of Appeal Of Revenue For Assessment Year 2011-12 Are As Under :

depreciation of earlier years. Tax is 3 ACIT CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR VS M/S. BILT GRAPHIC PAPER PRODUCTS LTD. charged u/s 115JB of Income Act 1961 on book profit determined 3. Against the order passed by the Assessing officer, assessee appealed before learned CIT(A) wherein detailed submission were made to submit that various addition made in assessment framed are unjustified