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

disallowance of exemption should have been made in light of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with section 13(3) of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 13 of the Act are reproduced below. Section 13 (1) Nothing contained in section 11 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year

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

disallowance of exemption should have been made in light of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with section 13(3) of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 13 of the Act are reproduced below. Section 13 (1) Nothing contained in section 11 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year

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

161 taxmann.com 160 (Del.); which concluded as under:– “91. Tested on the aforesaid precepts, it would be manifest that AY22-23 would form the first year of the block of 10 AYs and with the maximum period of 10 AYs terminating in AY13-14. We, in this regard also bear in consideration the following instructive passages as appearing

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

161 taxmann.com 160 (Del.); which concluded as under:– “91. Tested on the aforesaid precepts, it would be manifest that AY22-23 would form the first year of the block of 10 AYs and with the maximum period of 10 AYs terminating in AY13-14. We, in this regard also bear in consideration the following instructive passages as appearing

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

161 taxmann.com 160 (Del.); which concluded as under:– “91. Tested on the aforesaid precepts, it would be manifest that AY22-23 would form the first year of the block of 10 AYs and with the maximum period of 10 AYs terminating in AY13-14. We, in this regard also bear in consideration the following instructive passages as appearing

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

161 taxmann.com 160 (Del.); which concluded as under:– “91. Tested on the aforesaid precepts, it would be manifest that AY22-23 would form the first year of the block of 10 AYs and with the maximum period of 10 AYs terminating in AY13-14. We, in this regard also bear in consideration the following instructive passages as appearing

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

161 taxmann.com 160 (Del.); which concluded as under:– “91. Tested on the aforesaid precepts, it would be manifest that AY22-23 would form the first year of the block of 10 AYs and with the maximum period of 10 AYs terminating in AY13-14. We, in this regard also bear in consideration the following instructive passages as appearing

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

disallowed. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Com- missioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who agreed with the Assessing Officer and, accordingly, took the view that once the management in its books spread over the amount of Rs. 10,02,23,735 over a period of 60 months then, the Department was right in not giving the full

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

disallowed. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Com- missioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who agreed with the Assessing Officer and, accordingly, took the view that once the management in its books spread over the amount of Rs. 10,02,23,735 over a period of 60 months then, the Department was right in not giving the full

HARIOM BIOTECH AGRI FARMING,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CPC BENGALURU, CPC BENGALURU KARNATAKA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under 98[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form

DCIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR vs. M/S TRISTER RETAIL CONCEPTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, department’s appeal stands dismissed

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

161 Taxman 340, 292 ITR 11 (SC). The Hon'ble court has observed as follows: "Penalty under clause c of Sub-Section 1 of Section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, if the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) during the course of the Assessment Proceedings under the Act is satisfied that any person has 'concealed

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

161 – 164 3. ITR Acknowledgement 165 Response submitted in respect to notice u/s 5. 166 – 172 133(6) of I.T. Act 1961 Paper Book (Volume-II) D. Paramshakti Steels Ltd. Sr. Particulars Page no. no. 1. Ledger Confirmation 1 2. Relevant Period Bank Statement 2 – 41 3. ITR Acknowledgement 42 4. Computation of Income 43 5. Audited Financial Statement

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

161. Pursuant to search and seizure operation conducted under section 132, on 24/09/2012, statutory notice under section 153A of the Act was issued. In the high pitched assessment under section 143(3) r/w section 153A, the Assessing Officer made various additions by examining the Profit & Loss Account, Tax Audit Report determining total assessed income

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

1. The learned A.O. erred in making addition at Rs. 18,84,83,706/-being sale value of shares as income from unexplained sources u/s 68 of the Act. The addition made is unjustified and arbitrary. 2) The learned A.O. erred in making addition on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the I.T. Act at Rs.56

RAJURA NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,CHANDRAPUR vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5, CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

disallowed and added back to the returned income. 6. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. 7. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the Tribunal in following cases:– ―1. Doctor Punjabrao Deshmukh Krushi

RAVINDRA MADHUKAR KHARCHE,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE, CHANDRAPUR, CHANDRAPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Virtually From Itat, Pune) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 228/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ravindra Madhukar Kharche, 602, Nilgiri Himalaya Empire, Phulmati Layout, Badikheda, Nagpur. Pan: Ackpk1961E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

1) of section 270A of the Act, refers to the word 'may' and not as ‘shall’. However, the tax authorities below in our considered view were failed to appreciate the facts and circumstance of the present case holistically and further in right spirit of law, but dealt therewith without application of mind and perfunctory imposed / confirmed the penalty @ accelerated rate