DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR vs. AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act\n1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is\nunjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for\nnot allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of\nredemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

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

40,754/- when the claim of depreciation on assets, already applied against the receipts of the trust. The depreciation cannot be allowed as deduction as per the provision of 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

40,754/- when the claim of depreciation on assets, already applied against the receipts of the trust. The depreciation cannot be allowed as deduction as per the provision of 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

40,754/- when the claim of depreciation on assets, already applied against the receipts of the trust. The depreciation cannot be allowed as deduction as per the provision of section

RAGHAV AGRITECH,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 40(a)(ia) though the assessee had disallowed ` 3,09,750, being 30% of depreciation claimed by it. The assessee

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

In the result, Department's appeal stands dismissed

40% of\ntotal allowable depreciation at prescribed rates is actually allowed and only\nsuch actually allowed and only such actual allowance can be deducted from\ncost to determine WDV. And these decisions squarely applicable in the\nassessee's case. Since, this is the business income including other business\nSonu Monu Agro Pvt. Ltd.\nITA no.62/Nag./2024\nactivities therefore. the expenses

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

40,79,321/- in contravention to provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in treating revaluation of assets by Asset Reconstruction Company of NPA as loss or bad debts written off without appreciating the facts of the case

VISHAL KISHORILAL JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal for A

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

40) of the Act, and the return of income was processed under section 143(1). As per clause (b) of explanation 2 to section 147, the assessment year was deemed to have income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment. The case was reopened under section 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 was issued on 27/03/2021

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

M/S. UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Unijules Life Sciences The Assistant Ltd., V Commissioner Of Income B-35/36, Midc, S Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Kamleshwar, Nagpur. Nagpur – 441501 Pan: Aaacu8032D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Adv.-Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Nagpur Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 08.11.2011 For The A.Y.2012-13 Emanating From The Order Under Section 153A R.W.S 143(3) Of M/S.Unijule Life Sciences Ltd., [A]

40,535 representing disallowance of depreciation on purchase of assets allegedly held bogus which is illegal, and which deserves to be deleted as per law. 2 M/s.Unijule Life Sciences Ltd., [A] 8) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment being a case of unabated assessment, the additions to the extent not emanated from incriminating

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

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

Section 153A of the Income-\ntax Act, 1961?\n2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of an agriculture income, amounting\nRs. 1,61,800/-.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the disallowance made

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

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

Section 153A of the Income-\ntax Act, 1961?\n2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of an agriculture income, amounting\nRs. 1,61,800/-.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the disallowance made

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

Section 153A of the Income-\ntax Act, 1961?\n2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of an agriculture income, amounting\nRs. 1,61,800/-.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the disallowance made

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

TERRA INFRA DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

40, Hingna Road, MIDC ……………. Appellant Industrial Area, Nagpur 440 016 PAN – AAACN7166R v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–3, Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Kishore P. Dewani Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 03/12/2024 Date of Order – 12/12/2024 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. Aforesaid appeal by the assessee against the impugned

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