DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S GIGEO CONSTRUCTION CO.PVT. LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

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

250) have held that the provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) would cover not only the amounts which are payable as on 31st March of a previous year but also the amounts which are payable at any time during the year. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals

GIGEO CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3),, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

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

250) have held that the provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) would cover not only the amounts which are payable as on 31st March of a previous year but also the amounts which are payable at any time during the year. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S GIGEO CONSTRUCTION CO.PVT. LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

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

250) have held that the provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) would cover not only the amounts which are payable as on 31st March of a previous year but also the amounts which are payable at any time during the year. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

250/- as\nbusiness income\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.33,075/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assesse.\nPage | 3\nITA Nos. 173, 174 & 175/NAG/2016\nM/s. Shree Agrawal Finance India

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S THANJAVUR COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

250/- as\nbusiness income\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.33,075/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assesse.\nPage | 3\nITA Nos. 173, 174 & 175/NAG/2016 M/s. Shree Agrawal Finance India

A,C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.- 2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI DHARAMPAL R.AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

250/- as\nbusiness income\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.33,075/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assesse.\nPage | 3\nITA Nos. 173, 174 & 175/NAG/2016\nM/s. Shree Agrawal Finance India

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S MANSA AGRO FOOD PROCESSING PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

250/- as\nbusiness income\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.33,075/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assesse.\nPage | 3\nITA Nos. 173, 174 & 175/NAG/2016\nM/s. Shree Agrawal Finance India

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

250/- as\nbusiness income\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.33,075/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assesse.\nPage | 3\nITA Nos. 173, 174 & 175/NAG/2016\nM/s. Shree Agrawal Finance India

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

250/- as\nbusiness income\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.33,075/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assesse.\nPage | 3\nITA Nos. 173, 174 & 175/NAG/2016\nM/s. Shree Agrawal Finance India

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 respectively. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 respectively. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 respectively. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 respectively. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 respectively. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. VINODKUMAR RAJENDRALAL KOCHHAR, KAMPTEE

In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Nagpur [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the department are as follows: [1] The learned CIT(A) erred in quashing the impugned order dated 30.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 B without

MANOJ KUMAR VISHANDAS KAMNANI ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL 2(2) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

250 by the Hon’ble CIT(A) is unjustified and bad in law. 2. That the Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in making addition of Rs.33,00,000/- at the hands of the assessee in absence of any legal evidence. Manoj Kumar Vishandas Kamnani ITA no.58/Nag./2023 3. That the Hon’ble CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that

SHRI VISHWAKARAMA JEWELLERS ,AKOLA vs. DCIT AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

250. This difference of ` 82,58,593, along with the cash difference of ` 61,377, was offered by the assessee as additional income over and above the regular income for the assessment year 2017-18. The Shri Vishwakarma Jewellers ITA no.99/Nag./2025 total declaration was given of ` 85,00,000, which covers up the above two discrepancies mentioned. Subsequently

ANIL SHANKAR PALEWAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.36/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anil Shankar Palewar, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.219, Suyog Nagar, V Ward-5(1), Nagpur. Nagpur – 440015. S Pan: Abzpp 8221 A Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Ar Revenue By Smt. Rashmi Mathur – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax[Nfac], Delhi Dated 26.12.2021Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Grossly Erred In Disallowing & The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Grossly Erred In Confirming The Denial Of Benefit Of Exemption Under Section 54Ec Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Claimed By The Appellant In His Return Of Income. The Exemption Under Section 54Ec Anil Shankar Palewar [A]

250 of the Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO grossly erred in disallowing and the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi grossly erred in confirming the denial of benefit of exemption under section 54EC