ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR vs. M/S WESTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-2, Nagpur, [“learned CIT”], for the assessment year 2015-16. ACIT Nagpur vrs WCL ITA no.156/Nag./2019 2. The department has raised the following grounds of appeal:– “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

disallowance of other expense etc. Whereas, in an appeal, the Ld. NFAC confirmed these additions ex-parte for non-prosecution of appeal by the appellant assessee. 4. Without going into the merits of the case, at the outset we note that, in absence of cogent evidential material, submission and non-compliance by the appellant, in the evince of restriction placed

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. THE VIDARBHA CO OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry& Shri K.M. Roy

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) for the Assessment Year (for short, “AY”) 2020-21. 2 ITA.No.196/NAG/2025 2. The Assessing Officer vide assessment order has made the disallowances of ₹ 1,26,84,433/– and ₹ 46,32,040/– (₹ 1,73,16,473/–) which were claimed on account of interest/ dividend income earned from co-operative

BHATADI OPENCAST KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT ,BHATADI,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-1, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) for the Assessment Year (for short, “AY”) 2018-19. 2 ITA.No. 89/NAG/2025 2. In spite of sending notice for the date of hearing on today, the assessee neither appears nor filed any adjournment application, therefore, this Court is constrained to decide this appeal by this order as ex–parte

JAI KONDESHWAR NAGARI SAHAKARI BADNERAPAT SANSTHA MARYADIT ,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) for the Assessment Year (for short, “AY”) 2022-23. 2 ITA.No.275/NAG/2025 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 26 days in filing the instant appeal. Considering the reasons stated by the assessee in the application filed along with duly sworn affidavit

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

SHRI SAIBABA BAHUUDDESHIYA NAGRIK CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD (3)(4), NAGPUR

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the aforesaid\ndirections

250 of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (in short, `Act') for the A.Y. 2020-21.\nITA No.194/NAG/2025\n(Shri Saibaba Bahuuddeshiya\nNagrik Credit Co-op. Society)\n2. In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO), vide assessment\norder dated 28/09/2022 u/sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, has\nmade the addition of Rs. 71,00,105/- being `disallowance on\naccount

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

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. 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

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. 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

DOCTOR PUNJABRAO DESHMUKH KRUSHI VIDYAPEETH KARAMCHARI PAT SANSTHA MRYAT ,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AKOLA

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

250 of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 2. The A.O. and learned CIT(A) erred in denying deduction u/s 80P of I.T. Act 1961 by invoking provisions of section 80AC of I.T. Act 1961 even though Doctor Punjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth Karamchari Pat Sanstha Mryat Akola ITA no.331/Nag./2022 assessee had submitted the original return

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 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, 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