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

loss of earlier assessment years have already been set off against other business income of those assessment years, there is no need for notionally carrying forward and setting off of the same depreciation

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

loss of earlier assessment years have already been set off against other business income of those assessment years, there is no need for notionally carrying forward and setting off of the same depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF JNCOME TAX, CIRCEL-3 , NAGPUR vs. M/S. ACC NIHON CASTING LT, NAGPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

loss and set off unabsorbed depreciation Rs.20,19,09,580/- relating to earlier years i.e. 1995- 96 to AY 1999-2000 contrary

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON vs. RENUKA OIL INDUSTRIES, KHAMGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

loss u/s 35AD as per ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-II) [2006] 284 ITR 323 It is, however, noted that in the same case law, it has been held that this restriction of entertaining fresh claims of assessee made during assessment proceedings without fil valid

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

loss account. In the present case, the Appellant has followed paragraph 7 as the sales tax subsidy received by it does not related to any of the asset, depreciable / non depreciable but is granted for the purpose of setting

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

loss account. In the present case, the Appellant has followed paragraph 7 as the sales tax subsidy received by it does not related to any of the asset, depreciable / non depreciable but is granted for the purpose of setting

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

depreciation at ` 21,22,803. In this return of income, brought forward loss for the assessment year 2008–09 is claimed at ` 5,01,70,769, and for the assessment year 2009-10 at ` 2,61,43,904, and also claimed carried forward loss for the assessment year 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. The income for the assessment

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

loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year and for which a prior notice under Section 148 would be required to be issued. Section 147 does not contemplate an eventuality which Section 153A or Section 153C contemplates, the basis of which is inter alia a search action under Section 132 being resorted

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

depreciation as per Income Tax Act, 1961. TIE oversight by the employee was not at all intentional. There was a separate line item indicted loss on fixed assets of Rs. 4.02 crore in the profit & loss Account which was omitted to be added back in the computation. The error went unnoticed by the tax auditor as well as the same

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

loss account except to extent provided in Explanation to section 115] - Tribunal had rightly set aside order of Assessing Officer. Section 115J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956 Zero-tax companies - Assessee- company, while determining its net profit, had provided for arrears of depreciation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR vs. M/S. BILT GRAPHIC PAPER PRODUCTS LIMITED , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Acit Vs. M/S.Bilt Graphic Paper Products Ltd. Circle-5 First India Place, Tower ‘C’, Mehrauli – Gurgaon Nagpur Road, Gurgaon-Haryana 122 022 Pan No.:Aadcb 2230 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani Adv. 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. This Is An Appeal By Revenue Against Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Nagpur For Assessment Year 2011-12 Dated 30.03.2017 In Appeal No Cit(A)-4/59/15-16. Grounds Of Appeal Of Revenue For Assessment Year 2011-12 Are As Under :

depreciation of earlier years. Tax is 3 ACIT CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR VS M/S. BILT GRAPHIC PAPER PRODUCTS LTD. charged u/s 115JB of Income Act 1961 on book profit determined 3. Against the order passed by the Assessing officer, assessee appealed before learned CIT(A) wherein detailed submission were made to submit that various addition made in assessment framed are unjustified

DEENDAYAL SEVA PRATISHTHAN,YAVATMAL vs. ITO WARD-4, EXEMPTION, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

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

Loss Account. During the relevant year, the assessee also incurred capital expenditure of ` 92,69,109. Both these expenses have been claimed as deduction in its computation of income. While computing taxable income, the said depreciation has remained to be added back, and as such, this leads to double deduction. On 25/11/2020, the assessee filed Form no.9A, intimating carry forward

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

set up with new plant & machinery and the appellant has only one industrial unit. The AO in his order on Page 20 has stated that the assessee has not submitted the report of audit in Farm 10CCB far claiming deduction u/s 8018 and has therefore violated the provisions of S.8018 (13) r.w.s.80IA (7) of the Act. I find that

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

set up with new plant & machinery and the appellant has only one industrial unit. The AO in his order on Page 20 has stated that the assessee has not submitted the report of audit in Farm 10CCB far claiming deduction u/s 8018 and has therefore violated the provisions of S.8018 (13) r.w.s.80IA (7) of the Act. I find that

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

set up with new plant & machinery and the appellant has only one industrial unit. The AO in his order on Page 20 has stated that the assessee has not submitted the report of audit in Farm 10CCB far claiming deduction u/s 8018 and has therefore violated the provisions of S.8018 (13) r.w.s.80IA (7) of the Act. I find that

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

set up with new plant & machinery and the appellant has only one industrial unit. The AO in his order on Page 20 has stated that the assessee has not submitted the report of audit in Farm 10CCB far claiming deduction u/s 8018 and has therefore violated the provisions of S.8018 (13) r.w.s.80IA (7) of the Act. I find that

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

set up with new plant & machinery and the appellant has only one industrial unit. The AO in his order on Page 20 has stated that the assessee has not submitted the report of audit in Farm 10CCB far claiming deduction u/s 8018 and has therefore violated the provisions of S.8018 (13) r.w.s.80IA (7) of the Act. I find that

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

set up with new plant & machinery and the appellant has only one industrial unit. The AO in his order on Page 20 has stated that the assessee has not submitted the report of audit in Farm 10CCB far claiming deduction u/s 8018 and has therefore violated the provisions of S.8018 (13) r.w.s.80IA (7) of the Act. I find that