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

ANANT GAJANAN BANCHPALLIWAR,,NAGPUR vs. ITO-WARD-5(1),, NAGPUR

In the result this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya. (S.M.C.)

deposited. The Learned A.O. did not accept contention of the Assessee about Individual and HUF. And made the Huge Addition as follows: 1. Income from House Property Rs.3,18,175/- (Claimed by Appellant as income of HUF) 2. Income from other sources Bank interest Rs. 5,097/- 3. Unexplained cash

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

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

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

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

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

cash credit entries, the AO had asked the assessee to submit the following details. a) Name, Address, Contact Number, Email Id of lenders of loan:- These details were provided by the assessee in the submissions before the AO. The same details are attached herewith vide Annexure 1 for ease of reference. 7 Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal ITA no.375/Nag./2024

VANDANA DEEPAK BANKOTI,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(1), NAGPUR

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

property i.e. row house situated at Kasra number 94 Mouza Wathoda Tehsil and District Nagpur in the year vide agreement to sell dated 11.04.2015 and registered sale deed dated 28.06.2017 and therefore the transaction belonged to A.Y. 2018-19 as the Assessee accepted herself that entire payment of Rs.30,00,000/- was made during the F.Y. 2015-16, however

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

house property of Rs.75,408/- as business income. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.40,192/- and treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction u/s.24 by the assessee. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

house property of Rs.75,408/- as business income. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.40,192/- and treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction u/s.24 by the assessee. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances