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

section 36(1)(iii) in the books of accounts. 28. It is important to appreciate the financial statements, wherein the application of funds, as contained in Page–27 of the Paper Book is also reproduced below for ready reference:– No. of Figures at the end of Current Particulars Schedule Financial year SOURCE OF FUNDS:– Promoter‟s Fund A Promotor

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE , AKOLA vs. AKOLA URBAN CO-OPRATIVE BANK LTD , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, resulting in miscarriage of justice. 4. Any other ground which may be taken at the time of hearing with the permission of Hon'ble ITAT.” 3. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is a Scheduled Co-operative Bank engaged in the activities of banking within the purview of Banking Regulation Act. The assessee filed

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

section 143(1) of the Act. 6. The return of income for the assessment year 2009–10 was filed on 20/09/2009, claiming loss at ` (–)2,61,43,904, which includes depreciation at ` 19,03,368. In this return of income, brought forward loss for the assessment year 2008–09 2008-09 was shown and claimed

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. 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

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

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

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

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

depreciable asset shall be recognized as income in accordance with the provisions of the said ICDS. The existing provisions of Explanation 10 to clause (1) of section 43 of the Income-tax Act already contained the guidance for treatment of Government grants relating to acquisition of an asset. However, there was no specific guidance available under the provisions

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

depreciable asset shall be recognized as income in accordance with the provisions of the said ICDS. The existing provisions of Explanation 10 to clause (1) of section 43 of the Income-tax Act already contained the guidance for treatment of Government grants relating to acquisition of an asset. However, there was no specific guidance available under the provisions

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.

DEPRECIATION) 2. CAPITAL EXPENDITURE (NET) 4,39,97,911 B 21,17,57,426 (1,84,36,668 A - B TOTAL INCOME ) OR SAY NIL In other words, the assessee humbly submits before your honour that even if the voluntary contributions received by the assessee are treated as income, the same would not be assessed to tax as more than

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

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

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

36,654/-.\n7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of disallowance of 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

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

36,654/-. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of 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

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

36,654/-. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of 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