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

b) the amount that would not have been so charged had the amount actually utilised by the assessee for the purchase or construction of the new asset within the period specified in sub-section (1) been the cost of the new asset, shall be charged under section 45 as income of the previous year in which the period of three

VIJAY VINOD DURAGKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

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

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

house property”, “income from business & profession” and “income from other sources”. The case was re–opened and notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was issued on 20/03/2020. The assessee, while 3 Vijaya Vinod Duragkar responding to the notice under section 148 of the Act, vide her letter dated 30/03/2021, submitted that she having already

SHRI SUBUR KUMAR BANERJEE,,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. (OSD) O/O C.I.T.-1, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Nagpur erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,12,37,579/- without considering the fact that new loan was taken from DCB with an intention to have lower rate of interest than the higher rate of interest charged by IBHFL. Therefore addition made

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

I.T.O. WARD -3(5), NAGPUR vs. SHRI MUKUNDRAO GOVINDRAO MANKAR, KATOL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

Housing Society, loan agreements with LRPL, security provided for the said loan, interest paid to LRPL, etc. The Assessing Officer further carried out enquiries by way of issuing notice under section 131 to LRPL with certain directions contained in the said notice. The LRPL complied to the said directions of the Assessing Officer and furnished various details including copy

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year

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

housing project as construction activity and further calculating the income from this construction activity of the appellant at the rate of 8% based on presumption basis of taxation provided in Section 44AD. Hence your Honor is requested to consider the matter in above perspective and kindly delete the additions made by the learned

M/S NEW VIRAJ HOUSING AGENCY,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the three years is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

13 ITA183/NAG/2017 NEW VIRAJ HOUSING AGENCY VS ACIT , C.C. 1(1), NAGPUR (a) any person to whom a summons under sub-section (1) of section 37 of the IndianIncome-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under sub-section (1) of section 131 of this Act,or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income

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

b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. From the above reading of provisions of Section 273B, it is clear

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

13,00,000 towards cash deposited in the bank account without appreciating the fact that, there were corresponding cash withdrawals made during the year from time to time amounting to Rs.23,78,000 and; out of which the unutilised cash was re- deposited in the intervening period from time to time, totalling to Rs.13,00,000. That the cash deposits

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

b) regarding other cases, the addition to the income that has already been assessed, the assessment will be made on the basis of incriminating material and (c) in absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made." 9. More so, we further find that the Hon'ble Delhi High

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

b) regarding other cases, the addition to the income that has already been assessed, the assessment will be made on the basis of incriminating material and (c) in absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made." 9. More so, we further find that the Hon'ble Delhi High

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

2,74,00,000 and whether or not the learned CIT(A) was correct in granting relief under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act when the same is prospective effective from 1st April 2013. This issue has been raised by the Revenue in its appeal being ITA no.437/Nag./2016 (ground no.6 & 7), Revenue’s appeal being ITAno.438/Nag./2016 (ground

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

2,74,00,000 and whether or not the learned CIT(A) was correct in granting relief under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act when the same is prospective effective from 1st April 2013. This issue has been raised by the Revenue in its appeal being ITA no.437/Nag./2016 (ground no.6 & 7), Revenue’s appeal being ITAno.438/Nag./2016 (ground

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

2,74,00,000 and whether or not the learned CIT(A) was correct in granting relief under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act when the same is prospective effective from 1st April 2013. This issue has been raised by the Revenue in its appeal being ITA no.437/Nag./2016 (ground no.6 & 7), Revenue’s appeal being ITAno.438/Nag./2016 (ground

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

2,74,00,000 and whether or not the learned CIT(A) was correct in granting relief under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act when the same is prospective effective from 1st April 2013. This issue has been raised by the Revenue in its appeal being ITA no.437/Nag./2016 (ground no.6 & 7), Revenue’s appeal being ITAno.438/Nag./2016 (ground

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

2,74,00,000 and whether or not the learned CIT(A) was correct in granting relief under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act when the same is prospective effective from 1st April 2013. This issue has been raised by the Revenue in its appeal being ITA no.437/Nag./2016 (ground no.6 & 7), Revenue’s appeal being ITAno.438/Nag./2016 (ground

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

2,74,00,000 and whether or not the learned CIT(A) was correct in granting relief under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act when the same is prospective effective from 1st April 2013. This issue has been raised by the Revenue in its appeal being ITA no.437/Nag./2016 (ground no.6 & 7), Revenue’s appeal being ITAno.438/Nag./2016 (ground

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR vs. M/S SAS DEVELOPERS & ENGINEERS `, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by department is dismissed

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

section 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.18 On the above mentioned preposition, assessee placed reliance on following judgments – 1. (2009) 313 ITR 0340 (Bom. HC) Commissioner of Income Tax -Vs- Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 2. (2013) 88 DTR 0151 (Mum. ITAT) Windermere Properties (P) Ltd. –vs- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. 3. Judgment of Hon’ble ITAT