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 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

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

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

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

property of Rs.3,72,266/- as\nbusiness income\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,11,680/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assessee.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

property of Rs.3,72,266/- as\nbusiness income\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,11,680/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assessee.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

5\nITA Nos. 173, 174 & 175/NAG/2016 M/s. Shree Agrawal Finance India Pvt., Ltd., &\nITA No.178/NAG/2016 M/s. Thanjavur Commerce Pvt., Ltd. &\nITA No.294/NAG/2016 Shri Dharampal R. Agrawal &\nITA No.375/NAG/2016 M/s. Mansa Agro Food Processing Pvt. Ltd.\nGrounds raised in ITA No. 175/NAG/2016 (A.Y. 2010-11)\n"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nCIT

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

property of Rs.3,72,266/- as\nbusiness income\n3.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,11,680/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assessee.\n4.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances

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

property of Rs.3,72,266/- as\nbusiness income\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,11,680/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assessee.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

property of Rs.3,72,266/- as\nbusiness income\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,11,680/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assessee.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

house property, income from business and income from other sources. The assessee has also shown income from exempt capital gains from transfer of equity shares. 7 Shri Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani ITA no.410/Nag./2019 A.Y. 2014–15 The assessee has purchased 422500 shares of Swift IT Infrastructure and Services Ltd. by cheque on 16/03/2012 during the previous year relevant to Asstt

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

43,770 i.e., ` 1,50,000 (–) ` 1,06,230 [wrongly mentioned by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order as ` 1,50,000 (–) 1,02,230)] being deduction claimed under section 80C (LIC/PPF) was disallowed. The Assessing Officer has also disallowed the interest paid on borrowed capital amounting to ` 3 Vaishali Arvind Tayade ITA no.374/Nag./2022 78,540, aggregating

NARAYAN MAHADEORAO DHAWANE,MAHARASHTRA, NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD -5(1), MAHARASHTRA, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

43 in KH 159/47, Ward–15, Mouza Somanawada, Nagpur, for ` 3,59,520, along with others. On the said plot, the assessee built residential house out of the entire sale proceeds by July 2011. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the difference in stamp duty value of the property sold at ` 6,96,750, as against the sale