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

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

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of Rs.\n8,75,36,654/-.\n7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.\n47,53,025/-.\n8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting

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 being ITA no

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of Rs.\n8,75,36,654/-.\n7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.\n47,53,025/-.\n8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting

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 being ITA no

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of Rs.\n8,75,36,654/-.\n7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.\n47,53,025/-.\n8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting

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

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of Rs. 8,75,36,654/-. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 47,53,025/-. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting

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

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of Rs. 8,75,36,654/-. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 47,53,025/-. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting

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

deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of Rs.\n8,75,36,654/-.\n7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting the addition made on account of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.\n47,53,025/-.\n8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in\ndeleting

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 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

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 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

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

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

deeming fiction of section 68 have been invoked only on the basis of non-furnishing of tax returns and bank statement of lenders. 2 Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal ITA no.375/Nag./2024 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned First Appellate Authority was justified in endorsing disallowing of interest income of Rs.74,32,292/-. 3. Whether