ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA COAL(INDIA) LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

depreciation on wind mill. Since we have dismissed the issues while deciding the issues in Revenue‟s appeal, ground Nos. 6 and 7 of cross objections are allowed. 19. Ground No.8 is general in nature and hence, requires no adjudication. 20. In the result, cross objection (16/NAG/2014) filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 14 Group

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA COAL(INDIA) LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

depreciation on wind mill. Since we have dismissed the issues while deciding the issues in Revenue‟s appeal, ground Nos. 6 and 7 of cross objections are allowed. 19. Ground No.8 is general in nature and hence, requires no adjudication. 20. In the result, cross objection (16/NAG/2014) filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 14 Group

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD(EAELIER KNOWN AS GUPTA COALFIELDS & WASHHERIES LTD), NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

depreciation on wind mill. Since we have dismissed the issues while deciding the issues in Revenue‟s appeal, ground Nos. 6 and 7 of cross objections are allowed. 19. Ground No.8 is general in nature and hence, requires no adjudication. 20. In the result, cross objection (16/NAG/2014) filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 14 Group

ASTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIR 2(3) R, NAGPUR vs. M GUPTA COALFIELDS & WASHERIES LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

depreciation on wind mill. Since we have dismissed the issues while deciding the issues in Revenue‟s appeal, ground Nos. 6 and 7 of cross objections are allowed. 19. Ground No.8 is general in nature and hence, requires no adjudication. 20. In the result, cross objection (16/NAG/2014) filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 14 Group

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD(EAELIER KNOWN AS GUPTA COALFIELDS 7 WASHHERIES LTD), NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

depreciation on wind mill. Since we have dismissed the issues while deciding the issues in Revenue‟s appeal, ground Nos. 6 and 7 of cross objections are allowed. 19. Ground No.8 is general in nature and hence, requires no adjudication. 20. In the result, cross objection (16/NAG/2014) filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 14 Group

ASSTT.C,I,.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA COALFIELDS & WASHERIES LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

depreciation on wind mill. Since we have dismissed the issues while deciding the issues in Revenue‟s appeal, ground Nos. 6 and 7 of cross objections are allowed. 19. Ground No.8 is general in nature and hence, requires no adjudication. 20. In the result, cross objection (16/NAG/2014) filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 14 Group

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA COAL(INDIA) LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

depreciation on wind mill. Since we have dismissed the issues while deciding the issues in Revenue‟s appeal, ground Nos. 6 and 7 of cross objections are allowed. 19. Ground No.8 is general in nature and hence, requires no adjudication. 20. In the result, cross objection (16/NAG/2014) filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 14 Group

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA GLOBAL RESOURCES LTD(EAELIER KNOWN AS GUPTA COALFIELDS & WASHHERIES LTD), NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

depreciation on wind mill. Since we have dismissed the issues while deciding the issues in Revenue‟s appeal, ground Nos. 6 and 7 of cross objections are allowed. 19. Ground No.8 is general in nature and hence, requires no adjudication. 20. In the result, cross objection (16/NAG/2014) filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 14 Group

ASSTT. C.I.T, CENTRAL CIR, -2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S GUPTA COAL(INDIA) LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, cross objections No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

depreciation on wind mill. Since we have dismissed the issues while deciding the issues in Revenue‟s appeal, ground Nos. 6 and 7 of cross objections are allowed. 19. Ground No.8 is general in nature and hence, requires no adjudication. 20. In the result, cross objection (16/NAG/2014) filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 14 Group

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

65,162/-. Therefore, Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are allowed.” 5. Having heard the rival arguments and on a perusal of the material available on record, we find that identical issue on similar facts and circumstances, the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Atul Shirodkar & Associates v/s ITO, ITA no.1480/Mum./2021, order dated 07/07/2022, has decided the issue

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

section 263 of the IT Act, 1961. 3) Assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 3 The Vasant Co-Op. Shetkari Ginning & Pressing Factory Limited Vs. Pr. CIT 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of cotton ginning and pressing had e-filed its return of income

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

depreciation, it clearly indicates the addition is made with the prejudice and unlawful way and therefore needs to be deleted. 18. Further not withstanding anything mentioned in above para, even otherwise, if the expenses on purchase of machines are disallowed, it would ultimately result in increase in gross total income, which is completely deductible under section 80P. Thus, the deduction

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 debited to the profit and loss account can be excluded in terms of clause (i) of the Explanation to sub-section (2) of section 115JB of the Act read with proviso considered the object of inserting clauses (i) to (vii) of the Explanation to the said section. The Supreme Court held that the object of clause

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 debited to the profit and loss account can be excluded in terms of clause (i) of the Explanation to sub-section (2) of section 115JB of the Act read with proviso considered the object of inserting clauses (i) to (vii) of the Explanation to the said section. The Supreme Court held that the object of clause

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

65,11,260. The intimation was received by the assessee vide mail on 20/01/2021. The assessee had made payment of ` 2,06,50,000, to the contractor for building construction and has not claimed payment made to contractor as revenue expenditure in its Profit and Loss Account. The Assessing Officer made addition of ` 61,95,000, 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:-

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

65% of total sales. It is worthwhile to mentioned that. As per various judicial decisions farming of mushroom is a business, and not the agriculture one. Further, the income from mushroom production/manufacturing is not an agricultural income because of the following facts/reasons in the instant case 1. As the mushroom business is being run from factory buildings with the help

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