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

depreciation, etc." (underlined and bold for emphasis) In the above decision, the Apex Court held that the subsidy received by the assessee is capital in nature and need not be deducted from the actual cost of asset, post consideration of the object with which the subsidy was granted to the assesse. In the present case, the subsidy is received

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

depreciation, etc." (underlined and bold for emphasis) In the above decision, the Apex Court held that the subsidy received by the assessee is capital in nature and need not be deducted from the actual cost of asset, post consideration of the object with which the subsidy was granted to the assesse. In the present case, the subsidy is received

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:-

49,13,054/-, the gross income of the appellant comes to Rs. 2,15,809/- per acre. The said observation of the Ld.PCIT, shows his apprehension about the high agriculture income. However, this is subjective observation and the case has been selected for scrutiny to verify this fact. The AO has verified the transaction in detail and only after being

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

49,12,652, claimed by the assessee under section 80IB of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee stating that the assessee’s claim made under section 80IB of the Act is covered by various judicial pronouncements including that of the order passed

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

49,12,652, claimed by the assessee under section 80IB of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee stating that the assessee’s claim made under section 80IB of the Act is covered by various judicial pronouncements including that of the order passed

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

49,12,652, claimed by the assessee under section 80IB of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee stating that the assessee’s claim made under section 80IB of the Act is covered by various judicial pronouncements including that of the order passed

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

49,12,652, claimed by the assessee under section 80IB of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee stating that the assessee’s claim made under section 80IB of the Act is covered by various judicial pronouncements including that of the order passed

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

49,12,652, claimed by the assessee under section 80IB of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee stating that the assessee’s claim made under section 80IB of the Act is covered by various judicial pronouncements including that of the order passed

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

49,12,652, claimed by the assessee under section 80IB of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee stating that the assessee’s claim made under section 80IB of the Act is covered by various judicial pronouncements including that of the order passed

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

VASANT CO-OP SHETKARI GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY LTD.,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 29/Nag/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Vasant Co-Op. Shetkari Ginning & Pressing Factory Limited; At. Yavatmal Road, Wani, Tq. Wani, Dist. Yavatmal-440 010 Pan : Aaaat1439M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pravin Gandhi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale, Dr

1) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the Learned PCIT-II, Nagpur is bad in law and needs to be set aside. 2) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the ITO, Ward-III, Yavatmal is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

III(3)(i) of the Depreciation Rules. Its upholding the depreciation allowable in the present case to the tune of 40% cannot be termed as unjustified or unwarranted.\"\n7. Hence, the issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. SRC Aviation Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and decision of the ITAT

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

III(3)(i) of the Depreciation Rules. Its upholding the depreciation allowable in the present case to the tune of 40% cannot be termed as unjustified or unwarranted.\"\n7. Hence, the issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. SRC Aviation Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and decision of the ITAT

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

III(3) of the depreciation table\nextend to entire vehicles such as commercially pliable buses, cars etc. They do\nnot confine the scope of depreciation only to parts of such vehicles.\n10. In view of the above discussion, this court is satisfied that the Tribunal's\njudgment does not disclose any error as regards interpretation of Entry\nIII

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

iii) Advertisement expenses (iv) Professional charges This is besides rent for property at London included under the grouping ‘Rent’. As regard Trade Market, Logo Expenses, we are inclosing herewith copies of agreement(s) with two major parties i.e. DMA Branding Division of Alia Creative Consultant Ltd. and Image Public Relation PvtLtd.. As regards income in terms of Brand Equity