M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

31 Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10 to 2013–14 The physical verification of the seized documents and statement of the person referred to in Sl. No. 3 u/s 132(4) of the IT Act, 1961 prove that the seized material referred to in Sl. No. 6 belongs to the person

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

31 Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10 to 2013–14 The physical verification of the seized documents and statement of the person referred to in Sl. No. 3 u/s 132(4) of the IT Act, 1961 prove that the seized material referred to in Sl. No. 6 belongs to the person

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

31 Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10 to 2013–14 The physical verification of the seized documents and statement of the person referred to in Sl. No. 3 u/s 132(4) of the IT Act, 1961 prove that the seized material referred to in Sl. No. 6 belongs to the person

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

disallowance of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act was directed to be deleted. The relevant portion of the findings of the learned CIT(A), vide Page-14 to 38, of the impugned order are hereby reproduced herein below for ready reference:-\"7\nGround Nos. 2 To 9 : The appellant has challenged the addition made

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

10 The Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co–operative Society Ltd. A.Y.2014–15 “Any sum received by the assessee from any of his employee to which the provision of sub-clause(x) of clause (24) of section 2 apply, if such sum is credited by the assesse to the employee‟s account in the relevant fund or funds on or before

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

section 10(2)(xv). Whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend on the provision of law relating thereto and not on the view which the assessee might take of his rights; nor can the existence or absence of entries in his books of account be decisive or conclusive in the matter." (underlined and bold

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

section 10(2)(xv). Whether the assessee is entitled to a particular deduction or not will depend on the provision of law relating thereto and not on the view which the assessee might take of his rights; nor can the existence or absence of entries in his books of account be decisive or conclusive in the matter." (underlined and bold

WAGHMARE FOOD PRODUCTS PVT.LTD.,56, OLD BAGADGANJ , NAGPUR 440008 (MH) vs. CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGALURU, 1ST FLOOR, PRESTIGE ALPHA, 48/1, 48/2, HOSUR ROAD, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560100

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

31 “38. When we examine the insertion of proviso in Section 113 of the Act, keeping in view the aforesaid principles, our irresistible conclusion is that the intention of the legislature was to make it prospective in nature. This proviso cannot be treated as declaratory/statutory or curative in nature.” 7.17 Keeping in sight of the above discussion, in the present

JAIKA VEHICLE TRADE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

31 “38. When we examine the insertion of proviso in Section 113 of the Act, keeping in view the aforesaid principles, our irresistible conclusion is that the intention of the legislature was to make it prospective in nature. This proviso cannot be treated as declaratory/statutory or curative in nature.” 7.17 Keeping in sight of the above discussion, in the present

JAIKA VEHICLE TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIKA BUILDING vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

31 “38. When we examine the insertion of proviso in Section 113 of the Act, keeping in view the aforesaid principles, our irresistible conclusion is that the intention of the legislature was to make it prospective in nature. This proviso cannot be treated as declaratory/statutory or curative in nature.” 7.17 Keeping in sight of the above discussion, in the present

PREMCHAND KANHAIYALAL THAKUR,AMRAVATI vs. DCIT, CPC,, BENGALURU

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

31 “38. When we examine the insertion of proviso in Section 113 of the Act, keeping in view the aforesaid principles, our irresistible conclusion is that the intention of the legislature was to make it prospective in nature. This proviso cannot be treated as declaratory/statutory or curative in nature.” 7.17 Keeping in sight of the above discussion, in the present

PRADEEP KUNDU,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

31 “38. When we examine the insertion of proviso in Section 113 of the Act, keeping in view the aforesaid principles, our irresistible conclusion is that the intention of the legislature was to make it prospective in nature. This proviso cannot be treated as declaratory/statutory or curative in nature.” 7.17 Keeping in sight of the above discussion, in the present

GREAT SHERLOCK EFMS PVT.LTD.,3, SUYOG, RING ROAD, TRIMURTI NAGAR, NAGPUR 440022 vs. CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGALURU, 1ST FLOOR, PRESTIGE ALPHA, 48/1, 48/2, HOSUR ROAD, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560100

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

31 “38. When we examine the insertion of proviso in Section 113 of the Act, keeping in view the aforesaid principles, our irresistible conclusion is that the intention of the legislature was to make it prospective in nature. This proviso cannot be treated as declaratory/statutory or curative in nature.” 7.17 Keeping in sight of the above discussion, in the present

M/S. KABRA ENGINEERING,CHANDRAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

31 “38. When we examine the insertion of proviso in Section 113 of the Act, keeping in view the aforesaid principles, our irresistible conclusion is that the intention of the legislature was to make it prospective in nature. This proviso cannot be treated as declaratory/statutory or curative in nature.” 7.17 Keeping in sight of the above discussion, in the present

SUPRIYA PACKAGING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, NAGPUR

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

31 “38. When we examine the insertion of proviso in Section 113 of the Act, keeping in view the aforesaid principles, our irresistible conclusion is that the intention of the legislature was to make it prospective in nature. This proviso cannot be treated as declaratory/statutory or curative in nature.” 7.17 Keeping in sight of the above discussion, in the present

M/S AKAY UDYOG,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

31 “38. When we examine the insertion of proviso in Section 113 of the Act, keeping in view the aforesaid principles, our irresistible conclusion is that the intention of the legislature was to make it prospective in nature. This proviso cannot be treated as declaratory/statutory or curative in nature.” 7.17 Keeping in sight of the above discussion, in the present

SUPRIYA PACKAGING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

31 “38. When we examine the insertion of proviso in Section 113 of the Act, keeping in view the aforesaid principles, our irresistible conclusion is that the intention of the legislature was to make it prospective in nature. This proviso cannot be treated as declaratory/statutory or curative in nature.” 7.17 Keeping in sight of the above discussion, in the present

INTEGRITY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

31 “38. When we examine the insertion of proviso in Section 113 of the Act, keeping in view the aforesaid principles, our irresistible conclusion is that the intention of the legislature was to make it prospective in nature. This proviso cannot be treated as declaratory/statutory or curative in nature.” 7.17 Keeping in sight of the above discussion, in the present