VIJAY VINOD DURAGKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

house property”, “income from business & profession” and “income from other sources”. The case was re–opened and notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was issued on 20/03/2020. The assessee, while 3 Vijaya Vinod Duragkar responding to the notice under section 148 of the Act, vide her letter dated 30/03/2021, submitted that she having already

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

house is not taxable u/s 23(4)(b) . Without prejudice to our above submission, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in estimating the annual letting value (ALV) of flat. The AO on the basis of monthly rent of Rs 7,91,805/- received by the appellant from commercial property in Prestige Obelisk, Bangalore estimated the monthly rent of Flat

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

house is not taxable u/s 23(4)(b) . Without prejudice to our above submission, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in estimating the annual letting value (ALV) of flat. The AO on the basis of monthly rent of Rs 7,91,805/- received by the appellant from commercial property in Prestige Obelisk, Bangalore estimated the monthly rent of Flat

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

house is not taxable u/s 23(4)(b) . Without prejudice to our above submission, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in estimating the annual letting value (ALV) of flat. The AO on the basis of monthly rent of Rs 7,91,805/- received by the appellant from commercial property in Prestige Obelisk, Bangalore estimated the monthly rent of Flat

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

house is not taxable u/s 23(4)(b) . Without prejudice to our above submission, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in estimating the annual letting value (ALV) of flat. The AO on the basis of monthly rent of Rs 7,91,805/- received by the appellant from commercial property in Prestige Obelisk, Bangalore estimated the monthly rent of Flat

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

house is not taxable u/s 23(4)(b) . Without prejudice to our above submission, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in estimating the annual letting value (ALV) of flat. The AO on the basis of monthly rent of Rs 7,91,805/- received by the appellant from commercial property in Prestige Obelisk, Bangalore estimated the monthly rent of Flat

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

house is not taxable u/s 23(4)(b) . Without prejudice to our above submission, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in estimating the annual letting value (ALV) of flat. The AO on the basis of monthly rent of Rs 7,91,805/- received by the appellant from commercial property in Prestige Obelisk, Bangalore estimated the monthly rent of Flat

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 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 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 THANJAVUR COMMERCE 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

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 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

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

house out of the entire sale proceeds and claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act for utilisation of entire sale proceeds in his return of income which was rejected by the Assessing Officer without adducing any cogent reason. The Valuation Officer valued the property for ` 4,64,000 as against the stamp duty value of ` 6,96,750. Rejecting