SHARDA ISPAT LIMITED ,NAGPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

depreciation in terms of proviso to Explanation 10 of section 43(1) of the Act which is evident from para

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

43,50,000. In other words, such addition shall be subject to normal rate of taxation and need not be governed by the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, ground no.3, raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 21. Ground no.4, relates to denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act. We have heard the rival arguments, perused

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

43,50,000. In other words, such addition shall be subject to normal rate of taxation and need not be governed by the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, ground no.3, raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 21. Ground no.4, relates to denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act. We have heard the rival arguments, perused

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

43,50,000. In other words, such addition shall be subject to normal rate of taxation and need not be governed by the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, ground no.3, raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 21. Ground no.4, relates to denial of exemption under section 11 of the Act. We have heard the rival arguments, perused

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

depreciation at ` 21,51,907. In the return of income, this loss was claimed as carried forward. The return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 was accepted under 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

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

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

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

43. It was least expected from the 24 Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal ITA no.375/Nag./2024 Assessing Officer to at least verify the return of income of the lenders from their own database. Needless to say that in case of non–response, the Assessing Officer has all the powers to issue summons under section 133 of the Act and enforce attendance

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted as noted hereinabove. Thus

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

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 Principal CIT. It was argued that the Principal CIT had exercised the second option available to him under s. 263(1) by sending the entire matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment. That option, in the considered view of the Court, can be exercised only after

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

In the result, Department's appeal stands dismissed

43,318/- determined under the head -Income from business on\nprofession.\nDuring the course of assessment proceedings it was also observed that the\nassessee company has claimed agriculture income of Rs. 7,25,19,339/-. from\nselling of mushrooms amounting to Rs. 20,15.99.694, out of which total cash\nsales are of Rs. 13.21.13.755 more i.e than 65% of total

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

depreciation for current year as well as preceding year. The assessee filed its revised return on 01/10/2015, claiming TDS which remained to be claimed in original return of income. There were no changes in income insofar as other claims are concerned. The case was selected for Scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer concluded by passing order dated 27/12/2017, under section

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.

section 11 5BBC(3) of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Without prejudice to the above, the assessee humbly submits before your honour that except for a few instances, the Ld. A.O. has not recorded any concrete evidence but has merely casually stated that some of the donors were farmers who denied to have given the donation; some of the donors