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

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

section 24 of the Act. The CIT(A) has correctly deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer which were based on the remand report. Therefore, the disallowance of income from 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

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), 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 deserve to be deleted in the interest of justice. 6) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is needed. 4. Ground no.2, relates to addition

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), 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 deserve to be deleted in the interest of justice. 6) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is needed. 4. Ground no.2, relates to addition

NARESH VASANTRAJ TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), 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 deserve to be deleted in the interest of justice. 6) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is needed. 4. Ground no.2, relates to addition

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), 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 deserve to be deleted in the interest of justice. 6) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is needed. 4. Ground no.2, relates to addition

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

property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.” “Section 153C. Assessment of income of any other person- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sec139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153, where the AO is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs

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

property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.” “Section 153C. Assessment of income of any other person- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sec139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153, where the AO is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs

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

property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.” “Section 153C. Assessment of income of any other person- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sec139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153, where the AO is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs

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

property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.” “Section 153C. Assessment of income of any other person- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sec139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153, where the AO is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs

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

property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account.” “Section 153C. Assessment of income of any other person- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sec139, 147, 148, 149, 151 and 153, where the AO is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs

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

8 SushilaBhauraoDeshmukh ITAno.76/Nag./2022 accordance with law. The learned Counsel for the assessee, in support of these arguments, placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:– i) Dreams Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v/s PCIT(Del. Trib.) 2023 ITL 4669, ITAno.382/Del./2021, order dated 04/08/2023; ii) ITO v/s D.G. Housing Projects Ltd., [2021] 343 ITR 329 (Del.); iii) PCIT v/s Britannia Industries

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

house property of appellant must have been assessable for more than one year including the AY under consideration i.e. AY 2015- 16. Therefore, the Ld. AO is directed to allow the relief to the appellant for which the appellant firm is entitled to. Therefore, Ground No. 4 to 7 are allowed.” 6. Before us, the assessee has further submitted

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

property as Rs.1,20,38,000/-. The difference between actual sale consideration declared by the assessee and the fair market value determined by the DVO is approximately 9.43%. We find that the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dattatraya Kerba Lonkar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) after considering various Shree Maya Real Estate

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

property as Rs.1,20,38,000/-. The difference between actual sale consideration declared by the assessee and the fair market value determined by the DVO is approximately 9.43%. We find that the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dattatraya Kerba Lonkar Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) after considering various Shree Maya Real Estate

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

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 AO of Rs. 8

DCIT-CC-1(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. R.B.S.D. AND F.N. DAS(EXPORT FIRM), VIZIANAGRAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

13. From the above it is clear that there are two conditions for invoking section 69C. First is, that the assessee has incurred any expenditure in the relevant previous year, and second is that the assessee does not offer any explanation about source of such expenditure. If both the conditions are fulfilled, then only section 69C can be applied