DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2 (1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

disallow exemption of section 11 of IT. Act merely on the addition of Rs.1,80,000/-received on rent, when the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with section 13(3

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

disallow exemption of section 11 of IT. Act merely on the addition of Rs.1,80,000/-received on rent, when the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with section 13(3

ITO WARD-1(1) NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. ASHWAMI SALES AND MARKETING PVT.LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

3. Facts in Brief:– The assessee respondent filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 29/09/2013, disclosing total loss of ` 1,98,082. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and the Assessing Officer, while completing the assessment, disallowance under section

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

Section 32(l)(iia) of the Act which is not permissible. 13. Therefore, question no.(I) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant- Revenue.” 20. Therefore, relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in view of the observations of the learned CIT(A), the learned Counsel

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

Section 32(l)(iia) of the Act which is not permissible. 13. Therefore, question no.(I) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant- Revenue.” 20. Therefore, relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in view of the observations of the learned CIT(A), the learned Counsel

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

Section 32(l)(iia) of the Act which is not permissible. 13. Therefore, question no.(I) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant- Revenue.” 20. Therefore, relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in view of the observations of the learned CIT(A), the learned Counsel

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

Section 32(l)(iia) of the Act which is not permissible. 13. Therefore, question no.(I) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant- Revenue.” 20. Therefore, relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in view of the observations of the learned CIT(A), the learned Counsel

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

Section 32(l)(iia) of the Act which is not permissible. 13. Therefore, question no.(I) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant- Revenue.” 20. Therefore, relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in view of the observations of the learned CIT(A), the learned Counsel

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

Section 32(l)(iia) of the Act which is not permissible. 13. Therefore, question no.(I) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant- Revenue.” 20. Therefore, relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in view of the observations of the learned CIT(A), the learned Counsel

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

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

disallowed by AO and added as undisclosed income Total ` 15,99,600 ` 4,42,757 ` 2,68,490 5. The issue involved in ground no.3, 4, 5 and 6, in the assessment year 2014–15, relates to the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit 3 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 under

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

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

disallowed by AO and added as undisclosed income Total ` 15,99,600 ` 4,42,757 ` 2,68,490 5. The issue involved in ground no.3, 4, 5 and 6, in the assessment year 2014–15, relates to the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit 3 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 under

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

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

disallowed by AO and added as undisclosed income Total ` 15,99,600 ` 4,42,757 ` 2,68,490 5. The issue involved in ground no.3, 4, 5 and 6, in the assessment year 2014–15, relates to the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit 3 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 under

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

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

disallowed by AO and added as undisclosed income Total ` 15,99,600 ` 4,42,757 ` 2,68,490 5. The issue involved in ground no.3, 4, 5 and 6, in the assessment year 2014–15, relates to the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit 3 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 under

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

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

disallowed by AO and added as undisclosed income Total ` 15,99,600 ` 4,42,757 ` 2,68,490 5. The issue involved in ground no.3, 4, 5 and 6, in the assessment year 2014–15, relates to the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit 3 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 under

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

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

disallowed by AO and added as undisclosed income Total ` 15,99,600 ` 4,42,757 ` 2,68,490 5. The issue involved in ground no.3, 4, 5 and 6, in the assessment year 2014–15, relates to the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit 3 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 under

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

3. Having gone through the first appellate order, we find that the issue raised is fully covered by the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. in ITA No. 2426 of 2009 dated 21.03.2010 holding that the appellant was eligible for additional claim u/s. 10A due to enhancement

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act." 11. We find that the issues on which re–assessment order was passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act and the issues on which revision order passed under section 263 of the Act are entirely different. The assessee had filed Paper Books containing documents filed during re– assessment proceedings

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act." 11. We find that the issues on which re–assessment order was passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act and the issues on which revision order passed under section 263 of the Act are entirely different. The assessee had filed Paper Books containing documents filed during re– assessment proceedings

DCIT-CC-1(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. R.B.S.D. AND F.N. DAS(EXPORT FIRM), VIZIANAGRAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance under section 69C of the Act for ` 13,22,460. 5. The learned Departmental Representative (“the learned D.R.”) strongly relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and stated that the employee of the assessee firm admitted his statement recorded during survey proceedings the amount of ` 13,22,460, along with credit entries of different years towards cessation