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

6) of the statute. The said section debars appellant from claiming double application of income vis-à-vis depreciation, if the appellant has already claimed capital expenditure as an application of income. It was submitted as well as demonstrated by the appellant, that in a given year the appellant has only claimed depreciation as an application of income

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

6) of the statute. The said section debars appellant from claiming double application of income vis-à-vis depreciation, if the appellant has already claimed capital expenditure as an application of income. It was submitted as well as demonstrated by the appellant, that in a given year the appellant has only claimed depreciation as an application of income

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

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

6 lenders, coloured the entire unsecured loan borrowed during the year as unexplained cash credit, conveniently ignoring the fact that majority of loans were repaid during the current year and subsequent year and the assessee has duly paid interest and complied with TDS provisions. The A.O. erred in drawing negative inference based on non–response from few parties. Moreover

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

6 Vishal Kishorilal Jain ITA no.108–109/Nag./2025 A.Y. 2016–17 & 2017–18 Revenue. While deciding the issue, the Co–ordinate Bench has held as under:– “The question came up for consideration is (i) whether the Assessing Officer is right in reopening the assessment under section 147, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable

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

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:-

c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or 24 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the appellant, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court

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

C–2, Yogeshwar Ganga ..………. Appellant Apartments, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AETPS5421E v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(2), Aayakar Bhawan ..………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 ` Assessee by :Shri Sudesh Banthia Revenue by :Shri Piyush Kolhe Date of Hearing – 19.04.2022 Date of Order – 25.07.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The captioned appeals have been

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

C–2, Yogeshwar Ganga ..………. Appellant Apartments, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AETPS5421E v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(2), Aayakar Bhawan ..………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 ` Assessee by :Shri Sudesh Banthia Revenue by :Shri Piyush Kolhe Date of Hearing – 19.04.2022 Date of Order – 25.07.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The captioned appeals have been

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

C–2, Yogeshwar Ganga ..………. Appellant Apartments, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AETPS5421E v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(2), Aayakar Bhawan ..………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 ` Assessee by :Shri Sudesh Banthia Revenue by :Shri Piyush Kolhe Date of Hearing – 19.04.2022 Date of Order – 25.07.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The captioned appeals have been

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

C–2, Yogeshwar Ganga ..………. Appellant Apartments, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AETPS5421E v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(2), Aayakar Bhawan ..………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 ` Assessee by :Shri Sudesh Banthia Revenue by :Shri Piyush Kolhe Date of Hearing – 19.04.2022 Date of Order – 25.07.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The captioned appeals have been

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

C–2, Yogeshwar Ganga ..………. Appellant Apartments, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AETPS5421E v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(2), Aayakar Bhawan ..………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 ` Assessee by :Shri Sudesh Banthia Revenue by :Shri Piyush Kolhe Date of Hearing – 19.04.2022 Date of Order – 25.07.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The captioned appeals have been

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

C–2, Yogeshwar Ganga ..………. Appellant Apartments, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AETPS5421E v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle–2(2), Aayakar Bhawan ..………. Respondent Civil Lines, Nagpur 440 001 ` Assessee by :Shri Sudesh Banthia Revenue by :Shri Piyush Kolhe Date of Hearing – 19.04.2022 Date of Order – 25.07.2022 O R D E R PER BENCH The captioned appeals have been

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.

C) being premature is not being adjudicated. 17. As a result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.’’ 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR strongly relied on the order of the AO 2.4 On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and filed the following

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

43,142/- of which 45,70,112/- was debited to the P&L A/c. for the year under consideration. The balance expenditure of Rs.6,36,73,030/- has been deferred over a period of 3 years as deferred revenue expenditure. However, in its return, the assessee company has claimed the entire expenditure incurred on brand promotion as allowable expenses

AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-5,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is unjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for not allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of redemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.5, NAGPUR vs. M/S AVANTHA HOLDINGS LTD.,, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is unjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for not allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of redemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

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