SHRIRAM NARAYAN TIKDE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX, WARD 4(4) , NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

house property was completed on 31/07/2008 i.e within three years of sale deed of property sold dt. 06/11/2007. 6. That apart from incorrect appreciation of fact regarding period of construction, there is no other objection/s raised with regards to deduction u/s 54 by the learned AO during assessment proceedings and remand proceedings as well as by learned CIT(A) during

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

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

House Property. 3. Any other ground of appeal that may be raised at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 37. In this case, the assessee, for the year under consideration, filed its return of income on 29/09/2011, under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") disclosing total income of ` 15,03,450 and agricultural income

SMT RAJKUMARI DHARAMPAL AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 1(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

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

House Property. 3. Any other ground of appeal that may be raised at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 37. In this case, the assessee, for the year under consideration, filed its return of income on 29/09/2011, under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") disclosing total income of ` 15,03,450 and agricultural income

SHRI MAHESH DEVDUTTA GUPTA,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3),, NAGPUR

In the result, the addition so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

house property”. However, given the undisputed fact that the assessee has taken the loan for the purposes of his business and has incurred the interest liability of . 1,36,407/–, the same is directed to be allowed while computing the income under the head ‘Profits and Gains of Business and Profession’. In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

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

house property of Rs. 3,18,989/- as business income. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,36,709/- and 2 Shree Agarwal Finance India Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.176/Nag./2016 treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction u/s.24

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. MAKARAND MADHUSUDAN JOSHI, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

cash deposit is not from tuition fees. Furthermore, a small batch of students does not require a highly specialised classroom. Therefore, I am convinced with the argument advanced by the Ld. AR. Further, computation shows Income from house property

PUSHPA SUNIL DEVIKAR,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

cash received therefrom has been deposited in the bank account and thereafter investment has been made for purchase of immovable property at ₹ 24,00,000/-. It is also claimed that assessee deserves the benefit of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act for the investment in immovable property out of consideration received from sale of capital asset other than residential house

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

cash deposits were made in the bank account bearing no.040415026001 in the name of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. The Assessing Officer, however, noticed that said Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali, was not having PAN Card. Therefore, the Assessing Officer, after making certain enquiries, concluded that Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain, the assessee herein is the de–facto owner of of M/s.Maria Constructions

MISS FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

cash deposits were made in the bank account bearing no.040415026001 in the name of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. The Assessing Officer, however, noticed that said Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali, was not having PAN Card. Therefore, the Assessing Officer, after making certain enquiries, concluded that Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain, the assessee herein is the de–facto owner of of M/s.Maria Constructions

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

cash deposits were made in the bank account bearing no.040415026001 in the name of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. The Assessing Officer, however, noticed that said Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali, was not having PAN Card. Therefore, the Assessing Officer, after making certain enquiries, concluded that Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain, the assessee herein is the de–facto owner of of M/s.Maria Constructions

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

cash deposits were made in the bank account bearing no.040415026001 in the name of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. The Assessing Officer, however, noticed that said Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali, was not having PAN Card. Therefore, the Assessing Officer, after making certain enquiries, concluded that Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain, the assessee herein is the de–facto owner of of M/s.Maria Constructions

MISS FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

cash deposits were made in the bank account bearing no.040415026001 in the name of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. The Assessing Officer, however, noticed that said Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali, was not having PAN Card. Therefore, the Assessing Officer, after making certain enquiries, concluded that Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain, the assessee herein is the de–facto owner of of M/s.Maria Constructions

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

cash deposits were made in the bank account bearing no.040415026001 in the name of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. The Assessing Officer, however, noticed that said Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali, was not having PAN Card. Therefore, the Assessing Officer, after making certain enquiries, concluded that Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain, the assessee herein is the de–facto owner of of M/s.Maria Constructions

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

house property of Rs.3,72,266/- as\nbusiness income\n3.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,11,680/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assessee.\n4.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S THANJAVUR COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

house property of Rs.3,72,266/- as\nbusiness income\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,11,680/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assessee.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

house property of Rs.3,72,266/- as\nbusiness income\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,11,680/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assessee.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S MANSA AGRO FOOD PROCESSING PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

house property of Rs.3,72,266/- as\nbusiness income\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,11,680/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assessee.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

house property of Rs.3,72,266/- as\nbusiness income\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,11,680/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assessee.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances