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

SMT . RAJANI SURENDRA ADAMANE ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), NAGPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrysmt. Rajani Surendra Ito, Ward-4(4), Nagpur Adamane, Plot No.30, Near Ghodke School Surendra Vs. Nagar, Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur-440024. Pan: Alapa 9897 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) for the A.Y. 2011-12. 2 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) in the scrutiny assessment observed that the Assessee had sold one residential property vide sale deed dated 15/03/2011 for a consideration of Rs. 48 Lac, as against stamp duty valuation

PRITAM SINGH CHARAN SINGH GUJJAR,NAGPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

Housing Society, Gittikhadan, Nagpur, for a sale consideration of ` 37,00,000. The market value of the property was shown at ` 40,22,000, for stamp duty purposes. The Assessing Officer adopted the stamp duty valuation for computing profit and gains arising on sale of property by the assessee. The Assessing officer has not brought any evidence on record

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.-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

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 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and added the same to the total income declared by the appellant. 6. Contentions of the appellant: In response to the notices issued u/s 250 of the Act, the legal heir of the appellant, Veena Vinodkumar Kochhar, wife and legal heir of the appellant, DCIT Circle-3 vs Vinodkumar Rajendralal Kochhar filed

RAVINDRA MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

property of the tax payer, however, same can be easily fetched by the department by issue of summons. j) Copy of documentary evidences to substantiate genuineness of the lenders:- The fact that the transaction was indeed in a realm of a loan, is apparent from the fact that almost all the loans borrowed from the third parties were repaid

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016- 17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. 2 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 2. A search and seizure action