DCIT AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA, AKOLA vs. THE AKOLA JANATA COMMERCIAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., AKOLA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Section 80P(2)a(i) as the funds placed by assessee in the form of fixed deposits can be said to be kept for the purpose of business of the assessee as the assessee had availed credit facilities also against such fixed deposits which were again used for the purpose of business of assessee. Moreover, under similar circumstances, Chandigarh Bench

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 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

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

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

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

SANJAY GULABCHAND GUPTA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

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

45,598. The Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim under section 54F of the Act on the following reasons:– “…….. It can be seen that: 3 Sanjay Gulabchand Gupta ITA no.210/Nag./2023 1. The land use as per sanction development plan was for commercial purpose. Therefore the first and foremost question regarding the admissibility of the provisions of Section

A,C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.- 2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI DHARAMPAL R.AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

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

Section 153A of the Income- tax Act, 1961? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of an agriculture income, amounting Rs. 1,61,800/-. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

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

Section 153A of the Income- tax Act, 1961? 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of an agriculture income, amounting Rs. 1,61,800/-. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made

VIVEKANAND AKRUSHAK SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,BHANDRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BHANDRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

disallowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) thereon (tax effect Rs.2,60,528/-). 04. Learned CIT(A) as well as learned AU erred in not appreciating that the investment of funds with banks is very much incidental to and hence attributable to the business of the assessee and hence interest earned 3 Vivekanand Akrushak Sahakari Pat Sanastha Maryadit on such

VIVEKANAND AKRUSHAK SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT ,BHANDRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WRD-2, BHANDRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

disallowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) thereon (tax effect Rs.2,60,528/-). 04. Learned CIT(A) as well as learned AU erred in not appreciating that the investment of funds with banks is very much incidental to and hence attributable to the business of the assessee and hence interest earned 3 Vivekanand Akrushak Sahakari Pat Sanastha Maryadit on such

VIVEKANAND AKRUSHAK SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,BHANDRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BHANDRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

disallowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) thereon (tax effect Rs.2,60,528/-). 04. Learned CIT(A) as well as learned AU erred in not appreciating that the investment of funds with banks is very much incidental to and hence attributable to the business of the assessee and hence interest earned 3 Vivekanand Akrushak Sahakari Pat Sanastha Maryadit on such

SHRI DEEPAK SURESH GADGE,,NAGPUR vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1 , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

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

2,25,90,000/- Capital Gain Rs. 4,59,13,200/- Income tax Officer vide order under section 143(3) dated 21/03/2016 determined the income at Rs. 8,34,77,850/- as against the returned income of Rs. 7,90,46,080/-. While framing the order, the A.O. assessed income from aforesaid transactions as Income from Business as against income

ANIL SHANKAR PALEWAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.36/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anil Shankar Palewar, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.219, Suyog Nagar, V Ward-5(1), Nagpur. Nagpur – 440015. S Pan: Abzpp 8221 A Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Ar Revenue By Smt. Rashmi Mathur – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax[Nfac], Delhi Dated 26.12.2021Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Grossly Erred In Disallowing & The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Grossly Erred In Confirming The Denial Of Benefit Of Exemption Under Section 54Ec Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Claimed By The Appellant In His Return Of Income. The Exemption Under Section 54Ec Anil Shankar Palewar [A]

disallowing and the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi grossly erred in confirming the denial of benefit of exemption under section 54EC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as claimed by the Appellant in his return of income. The exemption under section 54EC Anil Shankar Palewar [A] as claimed deserves to be allowed as per law and in the interest

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

disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. The assessee 3 M/s. Vibrant Global Capital Ltd. ITA no.229/Nag./2022 has not preferred any appeal against the addition upheld by learned CIT(A). The Revenue has preferred appeal in respect to additions deleted in the appeal of the assessee and are enumerated in the grounds of appeal reproduced above

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

45 on the basis of the cost of such long-term specified asset as provided in clause (a) or, as the case may be, clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be the income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" relating to long-term capital asset of the previous year in which the long-term specified asset

A,C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.- 2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI DHARAMPAL R.AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

Section 153A of the Income-\ntax Act, 1961?\n2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of an agriculture income, amounting\nRs. 1,61,800/-.\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the disallowance made