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

6 The Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co–operative Society Ltd. A.Y.2014–15 head of Profit & Loss Account. The Appellant has debited an amount of Rs. 82,12,803/- towards Investment Fluctuation Reserves in its Profit and Loss Account. The appellant has debited an amount of Rs. 82,12,803/- towards Investment Fluctuation Reserves in its Profit and Loss Account. The appellant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

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

6,63,44,360. Thereafter statutory notices were also issued by the Assessing Officer from time to time. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 147 of the Act on 30/03/2022, determining total assessed income at ` 14,34,11,724, after making addition of ` 7.50 crore on account of 3 Vidarbha Infotech Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.76/Nag./2024 unexplained expenditure

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

disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act was made in AY 2017-18. 3.2 Aggrieved assessee carried these matters in separate appeals before first appellate authority u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. While dealing with assessee’s appeals the Ld. CIT(A) provided as much as five to eight opportunities commencing from 04/06/2018 to 01/10/2021 however, the assessee

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

disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act was made in AY 2017-18. 3.2 Aggrieved assessee carried these matters in separate appeals before first appellate authority u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. While dealing with assessee’s appeals the Ld. CIT(A) provided as much as five to eight opportunities commencing from 04/06/2018 to 01/10/2021 however, the assessee

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

disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act was made in AY 2017-18. 3.2 Aggrieved assessee carried these matters in separate appeals before first appellate authority u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. While dealing with assessee’s appeals the Ld. CIT(A) provided as much as five to eight opportunities commencing from 04/06/2018 to 01/10/2021 however, the assessee

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

disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act was made in AY 2017-18. 3.2 Aggrieved assessee carried these matters in separate appeals before first appellate authority u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. While dealing with assessee’s appeals the Ld. CIT(A) provided as much as five to eight opportunities commencing from 04/06/2018 to 01/10/2021 however, the assessee

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

disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act was made in AY 2017-18. 3.2 Aggrieved assessee carried these matters in separate appeals before first appellate authority u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. While dealing with assessee’s appeals the Ld. CIT(A) provided as much as five to eight opportunities commencing from 04/06/2018 to 01/10/2021 however, the assessee

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

disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act was made in AY 2017-18. 3.2 Aggrieved assessee carried these matters in separate appeals before first appellate authority u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. While dealing with assessee’s appeals the Ld. CIT(A) provided as much as five to eight opportunities commencing from 04/06/2018 to 01/10/2021 however, the assessee

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

AMARCHAND LAXMINARAYAN MANTRI,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

250, is hereby deleted. Ground no.1, is allowed. 9. In ground no.2, to Assessing Officer made addition of ` 6 lakh towards cash deposit in bank treating the same to be unexplained. 10. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deposit of ` 6 lakh on 11/10/2012, in the HDFC bank bearing account no.000069106, which is in the name of the assessee. The Assessing

AMARCHAND LAXMINARAYAN MANTRI,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

250, is hereby deleted. Ground no.1, is allowed. 9. In ground no.2, to Assessing Officer made addition of ` 6 lakh towards cash deposit in bank treating the same to be unexplained. 10. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deposit of ` 6 lakh on 11/10/2012, in the HDFC bank bearing account no.000069106, which is in the name of the assessee. The Assessing

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

RAVINDRA MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE , AKOLA

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

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

6,090 24 R G Agro Industries 29,450 2,945 25 R G Udyog 1,44,767 14,027 26 Radheshyam Biharilal Khandelwal 47,800 4,780 27 Rajendra K Chandak (HUF) 1,52,083 15,208 28 Rajesh B Khandelwal 20,075 2,008 29 Ravindra Gopidasji Mohata 14,250 1,425 30 Ravindra M Khandelwal

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

6) Disallowance of Mining Expenses of Rs. 25,06,079/- 6.1 During the year under consideration, assessee has incurred various expenses on mining of manganese ore. Amongst those expenses genuineness of following two expenses were questioned by the AO- Name of Party Date of payment Amount (` ) Sri T Puranchandra Rao 27/01/2020 16,14,218/- M/s Bhomatha Real Properties 01/02/2020

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