ANIRUDHA HARIHAR MANDAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), , NAGPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 390/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Anirudha Harihar Mandal 335, New Nandanwan, Nagpur-440009 Pan: Agopm9294J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] by the National Faceless Appellate Centre [‘NFAC’ hereinafter] for assessment year 2020-21 [‘AY’ hereinafter]. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that; 2.1 the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of mining & quarrying and other allied activities. The return of income filed by him declaring total

ITO, WARD-1(5), NAGPUR vs. M/S. SHREE GANNAYAK BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Sh. G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Sh. Mahavir Singhvs Shree Gannayak Builders & Developers, Ito, Ward–1(5), Room No.502, Plot No.2, Near Global India International School, 5Th Floor, Mecl Bldg., Kalmana Basti, Nagpur–440008. Seminary Hills, Pan–Abrfs9402L Nagpur–440006. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R.K.Baral, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Manoj Moryani, Adv. Date Of Hearing 07.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2018

section 40A(3) of the Act. The AO after considering the submission in entirety regarding cash payment out of the total payment made to 8 persons in excess of Rs.20,000/-, a sum of Rs.88,17,937/- was disallowed. The details are given in the assessment order which need not to be reproduced again. Aggrieved the Revenue preferred appeal before

M/S. UNIFUES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.419/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S.Unijules Life Sciences The Assistant Ltd., V Commissioner Of Income B 35/36, Midc Kalmehwar, S Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur – 441501. Nagpur. Pan: Aaacu8032D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Nagpur Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 08.11.2021 Emanating From The Order Under Section 153A R.W.S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 Dated 30.03.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : M/S.Unijules Life Sciences Ltd., [A]

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 08.11.2021 emanating from the order under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, 1961 dated 30.03.2016. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as under : M/s.Unijules Life Sciences Ltd., [A] “1) The Assessment u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) is illegal, invalid and deserves

KEMA LOGISTICS AND MANUFACTURERS PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.124/Nag/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kema Logistics & The Dcit, Cpc, Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd, Vs Bangalore. 80B, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur. Pan: Aabck 6785 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri G.J.Ninawe – Dr Date Of Hearing 09/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal, (Nfac) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Passed On 02.08.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) The Hon'Ble Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts By Dismissing The Appeal On The Ground That Epf Has Not Been Paid As Appeal Was Filed For Disallowance Of Bonus Payment. 2) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts By Holding That The Epf Payment Of Rs.9,75,173/- Remained Unpaid Before The Due Date Of Filing Return As The Amount Relates To Unpaid Bonus At The Year-End Which Was Duly Paid By The Appellant Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return. 3) Any Other Ground That May Be Taken At The Time Of Hearing

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2017-18 passed on 02.08.2021. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1) The Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law and on facts by dismissing the appeal on the ground that EPF has not been paid as appeal was filed for disallowance

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

section 44AB of Income Tax Act. The auditor, in its report, has not pointed out any defect in the books of accounts or bills and vouchers maintained by the assessee. In the assessment proceeding, the AO has not disputed the fact that the assessee has maintained regular books of accounts, bills and vouchers. The AO has not rejected assesses books

SIMA RAVISINGH KACHHAWAH,UMRER vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadalesima Ravisingh Kachhawah, Girad Road, Om Nagar Umrer, ……………. Appellant Nagpur- 441203 Maharastra, Pan – Aqmpk2899K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which are illegal, invalid and bad in law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the matter on merits and without proper appreciation of the facts and submissions on record, rendering the order unjustified, unwarranted, and excessive. 4. The learned

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1(3), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

250 of the Act dismissing its appeals assailed against respective assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A/143(3) of the Act by the respondent for various assessment years [‘AY’ hereinafter]. 2. Since the facts and solitary issue involved in these six appeals are identical, on the request of rival parties, and for the sake of brevity these appeals

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS, NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

250 of the Act dismissing its appeals assailed against respective assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A/143(3) of the Act by the respondent for various assessment years [‘AY’ hereinafter]. 2. Since the facts and solitary issue involved in these six appeals are identical, on the request of rival parties, and for the sake of brevity these appeals

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

250 of the Act dismissing its appeals assailed against respective assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A/143(3) of the Act by the respondent for various assessment years [‘AY’ hereinafter]. 2. Since the facts and solitary issue involved in these six appeals are identical, on the request of rival parties, and for the sake of brevity these appeals

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

250 of the Act dismissing its appeals assailed against respective assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A/143(3) of the Act by the respondent for various assessment years [‘AY’ hereinafter]. 2. Since the facts and solitary issue involved in these six appeals are identical, on the request of rival parties, and for the sake of brevity these appeals

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTREAL CIRCEL-1(3), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

250 of the Act dismissing its appeals assailed against respective assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A/143(3) of the Act by the respondent for various assessment years [‘AY’ hereinafter]. 2. Since the facts and solitary issue involved in these six appeals are identical, on the request of rival parties, and for the sake of brevity these appeals

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

250 of the Act dismissing its appeals assailed against respective assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A/143(3) of the Act by the respondent for various assessment years [‘AY’ hereinafter]. 2. Since the facts and solitary issue involved in these six appeals are identical, on the request of rival parties, and for the sake of brevity these appeals

SANJAY SHANKARRAO JADHAO,AMRAVATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2016–17, emanating against the assessment order dated 18/12/2018, passed by the Asstt. CIT, Circle Amravati. 2. During the course of hearing, we find that there is a delay

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON vs. RENUKA OIL INDUSTRIES, KHAMGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

section 35AD(4), not disputing the factum or quantum (except disallowance of construction expenses of Rs 1.90.70,349 discussed in succeeding paragraphs) of investment in construction of the warehouse by the appellant and its in principle eligibility for deduction u/s 35AD by the AO, etc, are the various other factors which substantiate the genuineness et the claim of the appellant

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

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

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

disallowance of depreciation on purchase of assets allegedly held bogus which is illegal, and which deserves to be deleted as per law. 6) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 60,00,000 representing unaccounted income which is illegal

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

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

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

disallowance of bad debts written off debited to the Profit & Loss Account which is illegal, and which deserves to be deleted as per law. 8) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw the above ground of appeal with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. When this appeal was called for hearing

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

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

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

disallowance of bad debts written off debited to the Profit & Loss Account which is illegal, and which deserves to be deleted as per law. 8) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw the above ground of appeal with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. When this appeal was called for hearing

CHANDRAKANT SUBHASHRAO THAKARE, HUF,WASHIM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AKOLA CIRCLE, WASHIM

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.23/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Chandrakant Subhashrao The Assistant Thakare –Huf, V Commissioner Of Income Sohan Autobikes, Near S Tax, Circle Akola. Railway Gate, Pusad Naka Washim – 444505. Pan: Aabhc6338Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Sachin Jaiwal – Advocate-Ar Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Dated 06.12.2022 For A.Y.2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. Hon'Ble Cit (Appeal) Erred In Dismissing Appeal. 2. Hon'Ble A.O. Erred In Disallowance Of Workshop Chandrakant Subhashrao Thakare-Huf [A]

disallows expenditure & added back to income without giving show cause notice & opportunity to be heard. 4. Hon'ble A.O. ignores the evidences i.e. Ledger, Bills & Vouchers. 5. Entire Judgment passed by A.O. is baseless & bad in law. 6. Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” Submission of ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) : 2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR

M/S. UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Unijules Life Sciences The Assistant Ltd., V Commissioner Of Income B-35/36, Midc, S Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Kamleshwar, Nagpur. Nagpur – 441501 Pan: Aaacu8032D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Adv.-Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Nagpur Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 08.11.2011 For The A.Y.2012-13 Emanating From The Order Under Section 153A R.W.S 143(3) Of M/S.Unijule Life Sciences Ltd., [A]

250 of the Act, dated 08.11.2011 for the A.Y.2012-13 emanating from the order under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) of M/s.Unijule Life Sciences Ltd., [A] the Act, dated 30.03.2016. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) The Assessment u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) is illegal, invalid and deserves to quashed