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 cannot be allowed as deduction as per the provision of section 11(6) of I.T. Act as double application of income. 2. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the addition of Rs.37,50

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 cannot be allowed as deduction as per the provision of section 11(6) of I.T. Act as double application of income. 2. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the addition of Rs.37,50

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation under section 32 of the Act and as a consequence to this decision the Legislature had to amend the provisions of section 32 with effect from 1-4-1997 by using the expression “owned wholly or partly”. Since no such words are expressively mentioned in Section 54F, in our considered view the word “own” in section 54F would include

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

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 which, in our opinion, is not justified in view of decision of this Tribunal in the case of Inox Air Products Private Limited (supra). Therefore, the addition of Rs.7,50,000/- is deleted by holding the proviso to Explanation 10 of section

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S SPACEWOOD FURNISHERS PVT. LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

50) (SC). 4. CIT v. R. K. Shrivastav (HUF) (298 ITR 53) (Delhi HC). 5.7 Considering the facts and circumstances and judicial precedents cited, the appellant deserves to succeed as the disallowance of prior-period expenses of Rs.17,65,162/- cannot be subject matter of rectification under section 154 of the Act. Therefore, the AO is directed to delete

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

50,000, to contractor for building construction has not been deducted and hence 30% of sum paid is disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) though the assessee had disallowed ` 3,09,750, being 30% of depreciation

DCIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR vs. M/S TRISTER RETAIL CONCEPTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, department’s appeal stands dismissed

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

section 271(1)(c) and hence it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Further on perusal of profit & Loss account assessee has claimed loss on Sale of Fixed Assets of Rs.4,02,50,000/- which resulted in loss of Rs.4,20,81,645/-. During the course of assessment proceedings by issuing show cause notice

ZIM LABORATORIES LIMITED ,NAGPUR vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), 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. 99/Nag/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Zim Laboratories Ltd. Ground Floor, Sadodaya Gyan, Nelson Square, Opp. Nadt, Nagpur-440 013. Pan : Aaacz0200E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent

section 263 of the Act is concerned, the same in our considered view carries substantial force. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the Assessing Officer while framing the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s 153A, dated 31.03.2016 had disallowed the assessee’s claim for depreciation on air handling system that was stated by the assessee to have

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the A

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

50 DTR 299. Fact being similar, so following the reasoning given in the aforesaid decision of various Benches of the Tribunal, we direct the authorities below to allow the claim of deduction u/s. 80P made by the assessee on enhanced income. Considering in the settled law on this issue, I humbly request your kindness to allow deduction under section

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]

50,000 allegedly representing unaccounted cash payments which is illegal, and which deserves to be deleted as per law. 7) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,05,40,535 representing disallowance of depreciation on purchase of assets

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

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\ncredits Rs. 6,45,38,278/-.\n5\nM/s. Shree Agarwal\nCoal India Pvt. Ltd. & Group Cases\n9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

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

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

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\ncredits Rs. 6,45,38,278/-.\n5\nM/s. Shree Agarwal\nCoal India Pvt. Ltd. & Group Cases\n9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

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

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\ncredits Rs. 6,45,38,278/-.\n5\nM/s. Shree Agarwal\nCoal India Pvt. Ltd. & Group Cases\n9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned