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

disallowing deduction Rs. 2,49,12,652, claimed by the assessee under section 80IB of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee stating that the assessee’s claim made under section 80IB of the Act is covered by various judicial pronouncements including 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

disallowing deduction Rs. 2,49,12,652, claimed by the assessee under section 80IB of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee stating that the assessee’s claim made under section 80IB of the Act is covered by various judicial pronouncements including 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

disallowing deduction Rs. 2,49,12,652, claimed by the assessee under section 80IB of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee stating that the assessee’s claim made under section 80IB of the Act is covered by various judicial pronouncements including 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

disallowing deduction Rs. 2,49,12,652, claimed by the assessee under section 80IB of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee stating that the assessee’s claim made under section 80IB of the Act is covered by various judicial pronouncements including 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

disallowing deduction Rs. 2,49,12,652, claimed by the assessee under section 80IB of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee stating that the assessee’s claim made under section 80IB of the Act is covered by various judicial pronouncements including 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

disallowing deduction Rs. 2,49,12,652, claimed by the assessee under section 80IB of the Act. The assessee being aggrieved filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee stating that the assessee’s claim made under section 80IB of the Act is covered by various judicial pronouncements including that

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

disallowance. There may be cases where the Assessing Officer undertakes a superficial and random investigation that may justify a remit, albeit the Commissioner of Income Tax must record the abject failure and lapse on the part of the Assessing Officer to establish both the error and the prejudice caused to the Revenue. Recording the aforesaid, the special leave petition

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

disallowance under section 14A at ` 9,88,570, though the assessee is not liable for the same. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. During the proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made a detailed submission before the CIT(A), which was recorded by the learned CIT(A) in its impugned order

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

2,00,000 for sponsoring the State Level National Children Science Congress in Assam. The disallowance of Rs. 9,00,000 was on the ground that the abovementioned expenditures were for non-business purposes and it was, rather, in the nature of donation. 25. While considering the above aspect of the appeal, it needs to be borne in mind that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S. FUELCO COAL INDIA LTD., NAGPUR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

section 40(a)(ia) are applicable in appellant's case and therefore the addition made by the AO was not warranted. The addition of Rs 1,50,000/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) may be deleted only if the appellant's AR submits necessary documentary evidence in support of his contention. Hence, this ground of appeal is 'partly allowed

RAVINDRA MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowed. 4.9 This jurisprudence was further explained in the recent judgment of the Jaipur Tribunal in case of Shri Kailash Chand Soni V/s ACIT (ITA NO.960/JP/2019) where in it was held that- “Para 14 :- We are of the view that it is not necessary that the expenditure incurred must have been obligatory; it is enough to show that the money

ACIT, CIRCLE- 3, NAGPUR vs. M/S SOLARIES HOLDING LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S. Solaries Holdings Ltd. Circle-3, Thapar House, 124, Nagpur Janpath, New Delhi Panno.:Aahcs 59040 B Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shripiyushkolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani (Adv.) Date Of Hearing: 18/04/2022 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-Ii, Nagpur Dated 01/09/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2008-09 Wherein The Department Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

Section 40A(2)a/40A(2)b as the appellant had entered into certain transactions with group concerns. However, in the absence of any such transactions in the books of the appellant, no such addition is required to be made. 11.4 In this context, it is important to note that the appellant has submitted that in the subsequent year

SUNRISE STRUCTURALS & ENGINEERING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roysunrise Structural & Acit/Dcit, Circle-4, Engineering P. Ltd., A10, Vs Nagpur Hingna Midc, Nagpur (Urban), Nagpur-440016 Pan : Aaccs 3220 M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R

2) [Vol.-IV]. Detailed documentary evidence was placed on record on 09/03/2023 to explain the various observations made in the notice u/s 148A(a) of I.T. Act demonstrating genuineness and bonafides of purchase transaction (P- 3 to 7) [Vol.- IV). B) A.O. without verification and application of mind has issued notice u/s 148A(b) of I.T. Act 1961 on 10/03/2023

GIRAD GRAMIN SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,WARDHA vs. ITO WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 124 days in fling the instant appeal, on which the Assessee has claimed that it is located in a small place and its employees are not very well versed with