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

3) r/w section 153A of the Act, inter–alia, 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

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

3) r/w section 153A of the Act, inter–alia, 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

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

3) r/w section 153A of the Act, inter–alia, 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

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

3) r/w section 153A of the Act, inter–alia, 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCEL-1(2, NAGPUR vs. M/S. VIBRANT GLOBAL CAPITAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. The assessee 3 M/s. Vibrant Global Capital Ltd. ITA no.229/Nag./2022 has not preferred any appeal against the addition upheld by learned CIT(A). The Revenue has preferred appeal in respect to additions deleted in the appeal of the assessee and are enumerated in the grounds of appeal reproduced above

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

3) for Asstt. Year 2014-15 A.O. of M/s Saphire Marketing Pvt. Ltd. has made disallowance u/s 14A of I.T. Act 1961 by taking the investment value of shares as made in the case of assessee. Investment made in the assessee company having been considered for making disallowance u/s 14A in the case of corporate share cannot be disputed

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

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

HIGH RISE CONSTRUCTION,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(5), NAGPUR

In the result this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya.

disallowance of exemption claimed. 3. Upon the assessee’s appeal learned CIT(Appeals) considered the assessee’s submission but confirmed the AO’s action holding as under : “4,3 Shri Rajeev Menghal, CA and AR of the appellant appeared in response to the notice u/s 250 of the Act and filed written submission. The AR has submitted that the construction

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

3, Nagpur. There cannot be double standard in case of substantive and protective assessment, because such protective assessment is made only for the purpose of protection of Revenue. It is to be noted that in case of Antariksh Barter Pvt. Ltd., the assessment was finalized on 28/09/2021, holding as follows:– “7.25 Meanwhile, during the course of search in the case

THE ISMAILIA URBAN CO-OP SOCIETY LTD.,YAVATMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1

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

Section under which the deduction is claimed Rs. 1. 80P(2)(a)(i) 73,64,124 2 u/s 80P(2)(c)(ii) 36,239 TOTAL Rs. 74,00,363 During the course of the Assessment proceeding, Learned Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 8-P with the following observation at Page No. 11/12 of the Assessment Order

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

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

124 - 134) (132, 133) [Vol.- III] iii) [2024] 164 taxmann.com 763 (Bombay) 6 Modern Living Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer (P- 255 - 266) (266) [Vol.- IV] iv) [2023] 149 taxmann.com 219 (Bom.) B.U. Bhandari Autolines (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (P- 6 – 9) (8) (Gist) H) Copy of report received from DGGI Zonal unit, Nagpur referred in 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

section 37 (1) of the Act. The expenditure which is treated as deferred revenue in the books, almost in all cases comprises of items, the benefits derived wherefrom are ephemeral and transitory in nature in as much as these are incurred as a part of a continuous process and need to be expended in order to generate and increase

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

disallow the expenditure that too on proportionate basis. We, therefore, endorse the view taken by the learned CIT(Appeals). Ground dismissed.” Respectfully, following the order of the Tribunal mentioned hereinabove, we, therefore, endorse the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) and 16 Group of 22 Cases, Nagpur. Gupta group of cases. dismiss this ground of appeal. Thus, ground No.1

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

disallow the expenditure that too on proportionate basis. We, therefore, endorse the view taken by the learned CIT(Appeals). Ground dismissed.” Respectfully, following the order of the Tribunal mentioned hereinabove, we, therefore, endorse the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) and 16 Group of 22 Cases, Nagpur. Gupta group of cases. dismiss this ground of appeal. Thus, ground No.1

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

disallow the expenditure that too on proportionate basis. We, therefore, endorse the view taken by the learned CIT(Appeals). Ground dismissed.” Respectfully, following the order of the Tribunal mentioned hereinabove, we, therefore, endorse the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) and 16 Group of 22 Cases, Nagpur. Gupta group of cases. dismiss this ground of appeal. Thus, ground No.1

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

disallow the expenditure that too on proportionate basis. We, therefore, endorse the view taken by the learned CIT(Appeals). Ground dismissed.” Respectfully, following the order of the Tribunal mentioned hereinabove, we, therefore, endorse the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) and 16 Group of 22 Cases, Nagpur. Gupta group of cases. dismiss this ground of appeal. Thus, ground No.1