SHREE AGARWAL COAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE 4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.28/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2019-20 Shree Agarwal Coal India The Dcit/Acit, Private Limited, V Circle-4, Nagpur. 216, Devkripa Society, S Bhandara Road, Nagpur – 440008. Pan: Aafcs6709L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Amit Darak – Ca-Ar Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe– Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 19/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Delhi Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 On 26.12.2021, Emanating From Order Under Section 143(1) Dated 25.12.2020 Issued By Dcit(Cpc), Shree Agarwal Coal India Private Limited [A]

disallowance giving a stricter interpretation to the provisions of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. Submission of ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) : 4. The ld.AR filed a paper book. Ld.AR submitted that assessee tried to upload the Form No.10CCB along with the Return of Income

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

156 taxmann.com 221) (Bombay HC) Gandhibag Sahakari Bank Ltd vs. DCIT/ACIT (P- 280 – 288) (286) [Vol.- IV] ii) 178 taxmann.com 259) (SC) DCIT vs. GandhibagSahakari Bank Ltd (P- 289 – 290) (290) [Vol.- IV] 5 iii) 422 ITR 337 (Bom.) CIT vs Shodiman Investments Pvt. Ltd. (P- 108 – 115) [Vol.- III] iv) 422 ITR 520 (Bom) PCIT vs. Vaman International

STELLAR REFRACTORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

156 taxmann.com 25 Delhi) dated 5-9-2023 Section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Employee's contribution (General) - Whether where deposit of employee's contribution towards provident fund was due on 15-8-2018 but it was made on 16-8-2018 i.e., next working day, 15-8-2018 being a National Holiday, deduction claimed under

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

DCIT-CC-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. INDRAKUMAR GHISULAL AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

disallowed u/s 68 of the Act 1961 and added to total income of the assessee. Ld. AO also made addition of Rs.4,12,466/- as 3% of sale consideration as unexplained expenditure by invoking the provisions of section 69C of Act. (Indrakumar Ghisulal Agrawal) 4. Being aggrieved, assessee carried the matter before the Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the assessment

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 30 of the I.T. Act. Taking into 30 ACIT, CIRCLE-7, NAGPUR VS M/s. Newquest Corporation Ltd. (Now known as Avantha Holdings Ltd) consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Department has not filed any supporting evidence/ rebuttal against the written submission ld. AR of the assessee except arguing that

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

disallowing the claim stating that the assessee failed to provide cogent and convincing reply to the allegations raised. We observe from the record that in identical situation the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA Nos. 4843 & 1228/Mum/2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 in the case of Ramprasad Agrawal Vrs. ITO (reported in [2018] 100 taxman.com 172 - Mum Trib

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

disallowing the claim stating that the assessee failed to provide cogent and convincing reply to the allegations raised. We observe from the record that in identical situation the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA Nos. 4843 & 1228/Mum/2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 in the case of Ramprasad Agrawal Vrs. ITO (reported in [2018] 100 taxman.com 172 - Mum Trib

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

disallowing the claim stating that the assessee failed to provide cogent and convincing reply to the allegations raised. We observe from the record that in identical situation the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA Nos. 4843 & 1228/Mum/2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 in the case of Ramprasad Agrawal Vrs. ITO (reported in [2018] 100 taxman.com 172 - Mum Trib

RAJESH SARDA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Rajesh Sarda, Acit, Central Circle – 2(2), Nagpur 14, Daga Lay–Out, Ambazari Road, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440033. Maharashtra – 440001. [Pan: Ahaps4925M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

156 taxmann.com 605 (Bom)  PCIT vs Kuntalal Mohapatra (2024) 160 taxmann.com 567 (Orissa)  PCIT vs Kuntalal Mohapatra (2024) 160 taxmann.com 608 (SC)  PCIT vs Parasben Kasturchand Kochar (2020) 109 CCH 0411 (Guj)  PCIT vs Parasben Kasturchand Kochar (2021) 130 taxmann.com 177 (SC)  PCIT vs Shri Ambalal Chimanlal Patel 162 taxmann.com 892 (Guj)  Prem Pal Gandhi (Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

SIDDHIVINAYAK NAGRIK SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowing it’s sec.80P(2)(a)(i) deduction claim(s) of Rs.34,23,715/-; Rs.25,30,955/- and Rs.3,27,870/- assessment year-wise; respectively; representing interest income(s) realized from 2 ITA.Nos.147, 148 & 149/NAG./2023 parking of alleged surplus funds in nationalized bank(s)/similar institution(s) involving varying sums. Needless to say, both the learned lower authorities

SIDDHIVINAYAK NAGRIK SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowing it’s sec.80P(2)(a)(i) deduction claim(s) of Rs.34,23,715/-; Rs.25,30,955/- and Rs.3,27,870/- assessment year-wise; respectively; representing interest income(s) realized from 2 ITA.Nos.147, 148 & 149/NAG./2023 parking of alleged surplus funds in nationalized bank(s)/similar institution(s) involving varying sums. Needless to say, both the learned lower authorities

SIDDHIVINAYAK NAGRIK SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowing it’s sec.80P(2)(a)(i) deduction claim(s) of Rs.34,23,715/-; Rs.25,30,955/- and Rs.3,27,870/- assessment year-wise; respectively; representing interest income(s) realized from 2 ITA.Nos.147, 148 & 149/NAG./2023 parking of alleged surplus funds in nationalized bank(s)/similar institution(s) involving varying sums. Needless to say, both the learned lower authorities

M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 1(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

section 153A of the Act by passing assessment order dated 21/03/2013, determining the total income at ` 52,76,37,930 by making following additions:– 3 M/s. Shree Agarwal Coal India Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.180/Nag./2016 1. Interest on FDR ` 38,57,643 2. Investment in land ` 75,000 3. Agricultural treated as business income ` 1,93,083 4. Deemed Dividend