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

e cannot make claim of double deduction towards investment of sale proceeds arising out in two different assets in two different assessment years under two different provisions against the construction of same residential property. Since the construction as contemplated in Section 54F of the Act could happen only once and that has already happened in the preceding assessment years

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

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

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

property as on the date of transfer. The authorized representative vehemently submitted that only one house was under the exclusive ownership of the appellant. The rests two houses were under the joint ownership. He pleaded that the “joint ownership” cannot be equated to “exclusive ownership” and as such the assessee was owner of only one residential house

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

E R PER BENCH These captioned appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even date 18/01/2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 respectively

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

E R PER BENCH These captioned appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even date 18/01/2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 respectively

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

E R PER BENCH These captioned appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even date 18/01/2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 respectively

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

E R PER BENCH These captioned appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even date 18/01/2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 respectively

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

E R PER BENCH These captioned appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even date 18/01/2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 respectively

SHRI PRAKASH JIWANDAS WANJARI,NAGPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

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

E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 22/07/2022, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2011–12. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. That on the fact

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

E) Notice of hearing u/s 263 dated 16/02/2022 issued indicates three issues for which jurisdiction is sought to be assumed. It has been noted as under: i) Accepted the claim of exemption 54EC of I.T. Act 1961. 9 SushilaBhauraoDeshmukh ITAno.76/Nag./2022 ii) Allowed exemption u/s 54B in respect to purchase of new agricultural land. iii) Cost of improvement claimed

PRITAM SINGH CHARAN SINGH GUJJAR,NAGPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

E–1/404 30,92,250 34,04,000 32,27,000 1,34,750 2. D–2/702 32,24,750 40,40,000 37,36,000 5,11,250 3. F–1/502 33,94,500 35,39,000 34,30,000 35,500 Total 97,11,500 1,09,83,000 1,03,93,000 6,81,500 The difference

SHREE MAYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

E–1/404 30,92,250 34,04,000 32,27,000 1,34,750 2. D–2/702 32,24,750 40,40,000 37,36,000 5,11,250 3. F–1/502 33,94,500 35,39,000 34,30,000 35,500 Total 97,11,500 1,09,83,000 1,03,93,000 6,81,500 The difference

SHREE MAYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

E–1/404 30,92,250 34,04,000 32,27,000 1,34,750 2. D–2/702 32,24,750 40,40,000 37,36,000 5,11,250 3. F–1/502 33,94,500 35,39,000 34,30,000 35,500 Total 97,11,500 1,09,83,000 1,03,93,000 6,81,500 The difference

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 ` 3,18,989 as business income and the addition of ` 1,36,709, made by the Assessing Officer are held to be unjustified. Accordingly, these additions are deleted while confirming the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A). Thus, ground no.2 & 3, raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 12. In ground no.4, raised by the Revenue

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

e) Quantum of interest paid and rate of interest:- The assessee has also submitted the details with respect to interest rate and quantum of interest. Your kindness may appreciate that the assessee has duly deducted TDS and deposited same to the credit of the ex-chequer. Duly complying with the law, the assessee had also filed TDS returns

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THIRD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. N KUMAR HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, SEVENTH FLOOR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

properties. The assesse has maintained regular\nbooks of accounts and books of account audited as per provision of section\n44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has obtained Audit Report\nand audited Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss A/c. and schedule within specified\ntime limit and submitted alongwith return of income. The assessee encloses\nherewith copy of audited Balance Sheet

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

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

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 the addition made on account

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

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 the addition made on account

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

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 the addition made on account

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

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 the addition made on account