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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned CIT (A)-2, Nagpur, [“learned CIT (A)”], for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The Department has raised following grounds of appeal:– “1] Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A)-2, Nagpur was justified deleting the disallowance

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

40,852/- 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.42,256/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assessee.\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

40,852/- 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.42,256/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assessee.\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

40,852/- 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.42,256/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assessee.\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

40,852/- as\nbusiness income\n5.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.42,256/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assessee.\n6.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

40,852/- 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.42,256/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assessee.\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

40,852/- 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.42,256/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assessee.\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

house property, (iii) 'profits and gains from business or profession', (iv) 'capital gains' and (v) 'income from other sources cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon'ble Gujarat High

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

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) has erred in deleting the addition

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

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) has erred in deleting the addition

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

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) has erred in deleting the 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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

house property of Rs.1,05,000/- as business income\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.37,012/-and\ntreating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction u/s.24\nby the assessee\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances

VAISHALI ARVIND TAYADE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, AMARAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

40,271, as income from salary received from Brijlal Biyani Science College. In her return of income, the assessee claimed following deductions:– i) Interest on borrowed capital ` 78,540 ii) Deduction under section 80C (LIC/PF, etc. ` 1,50,000 4. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to provide any document in support of her claim of deduction except

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

In the result, Revenue's appeal being ITA no

house property of Rs.1,05,000/- as business income\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.37,012/-and\ntreating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction u/s.24\nby the assessee\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances