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

VINAY RAMSHARANDAS AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

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

house property, income from capital gain and income from other sources. The assessee, in response to the statutory notices issued by the 16 Vinay Ramsharandas Agrawal ITA no.110/Nag./2023 Assessing Officer, furnished all the details along with written submissions through online portal of the Department, as desired by the Assessing Officer. It is pertinent to note that during the course

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

154 taxmann.com 44 (Del HC), held as under: “12. Ld predecessor DB of this Court in Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd (2017) (Del HC) has held that statements recorded u/s132(4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced here-in-below: “36. Turning to the facts of the present case, requires

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

154 taxmann.com 44 (Del HC), held as under: “12. Ld predecessor DB of this Court in Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd (2017) (Del HC) has held that statements recorded u/s132(4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced here-in-below: “36. Turning to the facts of the present case, requires

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

154 taxmann.com 44 (Del HC), held as under: “12. Ld predecessor DB of this Court in Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd (2017) (Del HC) has held that statements recorded u/s132(4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced here-in-below: “36. Turning to the facts of the present case, requires

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

154 taxmann.com 44 (Del HC), held as under: “12. Ld predecessor DB of this Court in Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd (2017) (Del HC) has held that statements recorded u/s132(4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced here-in-below: “36. Turning to the facts of the present case, requires

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

154 taxmann.com 44 (Del HC), held as under: “12. Ld predecessor DB of this Court in Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd (2017) (Del HC) has held that statements recorded u/s132(4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced here-in-below: “36. Turning to the facts of the present case, requires

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

154 taxmann.com 44 (Del HC), held as under: “12. Ld predecessor DB of this Court in Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd (2017) (Del HC) has held that statements recorded u/s132(4) do not by themselves constitute incriminating material. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced here-in-below: “36. Turning to the facts of the present case, requires