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

57,40,754/- 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

57,40,754/- 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

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

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.

DEPRECIATION) 2. CAPITAL EXPENDITURE (NET) 4,39,97,911 B 21,17,57,426 (1,84,36,668 A - B TOTAL INCOME ) OR SAY NIL In other words, the assessee humbly submits before your honour that even if the voluntary contributions received by the assessee are treated as income, the same would not be assessed to tax as more than

M/S UNIVERSAL DRINKS PVT . LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CIR. -2, NAGPUR

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

DEPRECIATION 898365 533995 769869 LESS: REVALUATION RESERVE 364370 TOTAL :– 2910067 2347951 PROFIT BEFORE EXCEPTIONAL AND 7180391 4537841 EXTRAORDINARY ITEMS LESS: LOSS ON SALE OF SHARES 1452500 – – (INVESTMENT) LOSS ON SALE OF SHARES (ASSETS) – – 2253149 PROFIT AFTER EXCEPTIONAL AND 5727891 2284692 EXTRAORDINARY ITEMS M/s. Universal Drinks Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.184/Nag./2016 4. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative

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:-

57,81,768/- through the Krishi Upaj Samiti, Seoni, MP and the other sales shave been stated to be made to the other parties directly. Even this observation does not lead to any conclusive evidence to submit that the transactions were not entered. Neither the ld. PCIT nor the ld DR brought anything on record to buttress the opinion

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU AJAY SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the A

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

section. The CBDT has very categorically stated that some assessing officers are wrongly interpreting the term initial assessment year as the year in which the eligible business / manufacturing activity has commenced and clarified that the term Initial Year" would mean the first year opted by the assessee for claiming deduction u/s 80IA. The assessee has opted FY 2011-12 relevant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU AJAY SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the A

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

section. The CBDT has very categorically stated that some assessing officers are wrongly interpreting the term initial assessment year as the year in which the eligible business / manufacturing activity has commenced and clarified that the term Initial Year" would mean the first year opted by the assessee for claiming deduction u/s 80IA. The assessee has opted FY 2011-12 relevant

M/S SHREE TRADERS ,BULDHANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

section 72 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO denied set off of carry forward business loss. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO primarily placed reliance on the order of ITAT Mumbai Benches in the case of Digital Electronics Ltd. in ITA No. 1658/Mum/2009 vide order dated 20- 10-2010. The CIT(A) reproduced the relevant part

PREMJEET SINGH,DABHA NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 10(14)(i) and 10(14)(ii) of the Act, and such allowance of expenses were reflected in the return of income filed by the assessee. The assessee, in response to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer, furnished his submissions in support of the claim which are reproduced below:– “We are in receipt of show cause notice

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

Section 30 of the I.T. Act. Taking into 30 ACIT, CIRCLE-7, NAGPUR VS M/s. Newquest Corporation Ltd. (Now known as Avantha Holdings Ltd) consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Department has not filed any supporting evidence/ rebuttal against the written submission ld. AR of the assessee except arguing that