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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

house property against long-term capital gains of Rs.73,041 offered by the assessee. 4. Without prejudice to Ground number 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). 5.The learned AO erred

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

31,367, in respect of loan from HSBC for self occupied property at Mumbai. Interest claimed at Rs.1,50,000 u/s 24B has not been allowed by the AO by simply stating that interest certificate does not justify for home loan which is not found correct from perusal thereof. Further on 1.12.2007, the appellant has been sanctioned loan of Rs.9.80

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

section 2(31) of the I.T.Act is a separate juristic legal entity distinct from its members and a search in the residential premises of the partners of the firm cannot be considered as search of partnership firm. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: 1) Tirupati Oil Corp.248ITR194(BOM HC) 2) Nenmal Parmer 195ITR0582(KAR HC) 3) Shri Govind

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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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

section 50C deserves to be ignored in the interest of justice. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 6) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant on account of income from house property from the houses owned by the Appellant without providing any cogent reasons for the same and further by ignoring the submissions

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

section 50C deserves to be ignored in the interest of justice. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 6) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant on account of income from house property from the houses owned by the Appellant without providing any cogent reasons for the same and further by ignoring the submissions

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

section 50C deserves to be ignored in the interest of justice. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 6) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant on account of income from house property from the houses owned by the Appellant without providing any cogent reasons for the same and further by ignoring the submissions