SHRI RAJESH DAYARAMANI,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-8,, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

section 22 of the Act, no ALV of such property can be 12 Shri Rajesh Moolchand Dayaramani assessed to tax under the head income from house property. The addition made by the Assessing Officer at ` 54,600 is held to be unjustified and same is therefore directed to be deleted. The ground of appeal of appellant is allowed. 13

ITO, WARD-6(1),, NAGPUR vs. THE VIDARBHA PREMIER CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY,, NAGPUR

In the result these appeals by the assessee and revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

13) It is not disputed that the Appellant society is carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its members, and the same is established by the learned CIT(A). That the provisions of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act besides being applicable to business of banking also applies to the business of providing credit facility

THE VIDHARBHA PREMIER CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,,NAGPUR vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, RANGE-6, NAGPUR

In the result these appeals by the assessee and revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

13) It is not disputed that the Appellant society is carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its members, and the same is established by the learned CIT(A). That the provisions of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act besides being applicable to business of banking also applies to the business of providing credit facility

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

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

3 above, the assessee submits that, the learned AO and learned CIT(A) erred in not referring the valuation of the property sold i.e situated at Shanti Nagar, Nagpur to DVO as per section 50C(2) since, the assessee had objected that stamp duty valuation exceeded the fair market value of the property sold. 5. The learned AO erred

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

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

13. This Court has in Smt Jami Nirmala [2021] (Ori HC) and Smt Smrutisudha Nayak [2022] (Ori HC) relied on Kabul Chawla [2015] (Del HC) where inter alia it was observed as under: “…(iv) Although Section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other

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

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

13. This Court has in Smt Jami Nirmala [2021] (Ori HC) and Smt Smrutisudha Nayak [2022] (Ori HC) relied on Kabul Chawla [2015] (Del HC) where inter alia it was observed as under: “…(iv) Although Section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other

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

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

13. This Court has in Smt Jami Nirmala [2021] (Ori HC) and Smt Smrutisudha Nayak [2022] (Ori HC) relied on Kabul Chawla [2015] (Del HC) where inter alia it was observed as under: “…(iv) Although Section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other

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

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

13. This Court has in Smt Jami Nirmala [2021] (Ori HC) and Smt Smrutisudha Nayak [2022] (Ori HC) relied on Kabul Chawla [2015] (Del HC) where inter alia it was observed as under: “…(iv) Although Section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other

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

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

13. This Court has in Smt Jami Nirmala [2021] (Ori HC) and Smt Smrutisudha Nayak [2022] (Ori HC) relied on Kabul Chawla [2015] (Del HC) where inter alia it was observed as under: “…(iv) Although Section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other

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

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

13. This Court has in Smt Jami Nirmala [2021] (Ori HC) and Smt Smrutisudha Nayak [2022] (Ori HC) relied on Kabul Chawla [2015] (Del HC) where inter alia it was observed as under: “…(iv) Although Section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other

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

property as per registered sale deed is residential house under construction with built–up area of 158.55 sq.mtrs. on the piece of plot measuring 19,200 sq.mtrs. in survey no.11/1, Mauja Navsari, District Amravati. The land is consistently used for agricultural purpose. It is beyond the scope of wildest imagination that usage of land is ambulatory even when character

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

Section 24 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore addition made is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Nagpur erred in not accepting loan taken from bank as housing loan and not accepting interest paid to DCB bank amounting to Rs.1,12,37,579/-; Therefore addition made is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive

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

Section 32(l)(iia) of the Act which is not permissible. 13. Therefore, question no.(I) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant- Revenue.” 20. Therefore, relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in view of the observations of the learned CIT(A), the learned Counsel

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

Section 32(l)(iia) of the Act which is not permissible. 13. Therefore, question no.(I) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant- Revenue.” 20. Therefore, relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in view of the observations of the learned CIT(A), the learned Counsel

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

Section 32(l)(iia) of the Act which is not permissible. 13. Therefore, question no.(I) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant- Revenue.” 20. Therefore, relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in view of the observations of the learned CIT(A), the learned Counsel

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

Section 32(l)(iia) of the Act which is not permissible. 13. Therefore, question no.(I) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant- Revenue.” 20. Therefore, relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in view of the observations of the learned CIT(A), the learned Counsel

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

Section 32(l)(iia) of the Act which is not permissible. 13. Therefore, question no.(I) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the appellant- Revenue.” 20. Therefore, relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and in view of the observations of the learned CIT(A), the learned Counsel