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

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

43 (1) for the purpose of acquisition of depreciation, etc." (underlined and bold for emphasis) In the above decision, the Apex Court held that the subsidy received by the assessee is capital in nature and need not be deducted from the actual cost of asset, post consideration of the object with which the subsidy was granted to the assesse

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

43 (1) for the purpose of acquisition of depreciation, etc." (underlined and bold for emphasis) In the above decision, the Apex Court held that the subsidy received by the assessee is capital in nature and need not be deducted from the actual cost of asset, post consideration of the object with which the subsidy was granted to the assesse

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

section 68 only sets up a presumption against the assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of account of the assessee. It cannot but be again said that the presumption is rebuttable. In refuting the presumption raised, the initial burden is on the assessee. This burden, which is placed on the assessee, shifts as soon as the assessee

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

43,636 ` 6,46,05,741 Loan from Shree Agarwal Coal India P.Ltd. treated (After Rectifi- (viii) as dividend u/s 2(22)(e) cation: ` 6,49,70,741 Loan from Mansa Agro Food Processing P. Ltd ` 3,65,000 (ix) treated dividend u/s 2 (22)(e) The deposits with bank treated as unexplained (x) ` 40,63,928 Investment in purchase

DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2, CHANDRAPUR

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

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

6 Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery Kamgar Sahakari Pat Sanstha A.Y. 2018–19 and 2020–21 7. As per the details, the appellant was in receipt of Interest of Rs.91,47,236/- from Co-operative banks (Rs.71,33,540/-) and from Co- operative societies (Rs.20,13,696/-). It is for the appellant to explain the difference between the two RBI has published

DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR

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

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

6 Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery Kamgar Sahakari Pat Sanstha A.Y. 2018–19 and 2020–21 7. As per the details, the appellant was in receipt of Interest of Rs.91,47,236/- from Co-operative banks (Rs.71,33,540/-) and from Co- operative societies (Rs.20,13,696/-). It is for the appellant to explain the difference between the two RBI has published

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

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 Officer noted that all the transactions in assessee’s bank account are reflected in assessee’s regular books of account. The Assessing Officer sought explanation, vide notice dated 10/03/2016, from the assessee, in response

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

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 Officer noted that all the transactions in assessee’s bank account are reflected in assessee’s regular books of account. The Assessing Officer sought explanation, vide notice dated 10/03/2016, from the assessee, in response

SHARDA ISPAT LIMITED ,NAGPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowance is justified in terms of proviso to Explanation 10 of 3 ITA No. 69/NAG/2019, A.Y. 2007-08 section 43(1) of the Act. In a recent decision of this Tribunal in the case of Inox Air Products Private Limited in ITA No. 1042/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2014-15 held when the subsidy is not granted to meet the cost

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

disallowance of such expenditure. 29.2 This used to enable the taxpayer charged to tax under section 69C to claim the expenditure as deduction under section 37 defeating the very objective of the section. 29.3 The Act has amended section 69C of the Income-tax Act according to which unexplained expenditure deemed as income cannot be allowed as deduction under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA RADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

disallowance of such expenditure. 29.2 This used to enable the taxpayer charged to tax under section 69C to claim the expenditure as deduction under section 37 defeating the very objective of the section. 29.3 The Act has amended section 69C of the Income-tax Act according to which unexplained expenditure deemed as income cannot be allowed as deduction under

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

disallowance of such expenditure. 29.2 This used to enable the taxpayer charged to tax under section 69C to claim the expenditure as deduction under section 37 defeating the very objective of the section. 29.3 The Act has amended section 69C of the Income-tax Act according to which unexplained expenditure deemed as income cannot be allowed as deduction under

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

disallowance of such expenditure. 29.2 This used to enable the taxpayer charged to tax under section 69C to claim the expenditure as deduction under section 37 defeating the very objective of the section. 29.3 The Act has amended section 69C of the Income-tax Act according to which unexplained expenditure deemed as income cannot be allowed as deduction under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER , NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

disallowance of such expenditure. 29.2 This used to enable the taxpayer charged to tax under section 69C to claim the expenditure as deduction under section 37 defeating the very objective of the section. 29.3 The Act has amended section 69C of the Income-tax Act according to which unexplained expenditure deemed as income cannot be allowed as deduction under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

disallowance of such expenditure. 29.2 This used to enable the taxpayer charged to tax under section 69C to claim the expenditure as deduction under section 37 defeating the very objective of the section. 29.3 The Act has amended section 69C of the Income-tax Act according to which unexplained expenditure deemed as income cannot be allowed as deduction under

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

disallowance of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act was directed to be deleted. The relevant portion of the findings of the learned CIT(A), vide Page-14 to 38, of the impugned order are hereby reproduced herein below for ready reference:-\"7\nGround Nos. 2 To 9 : The appellant has challenged the addition made