THE VIDHARBHA PREMIER CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,,NAGPUR vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, RANGE-6, NAGPUR

In the result these appeals by the assessee and revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

property. We have simply granted credit facility from the funds received from members and we are working simply as agent and 90% of the members are like this only availed this facility. The object clauses of the society as per byelaws do allow the society to have providing credit facilities to its members. As far as the assessee society

SHRI MAHESH DEVDUTTA GUPTA,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3),, NAGPUR

In the result, the addition so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

section 9 ITANo.143/Nag/2017 263, has also returned a finding that facilities provided are integral part of the house property being let out and such facilities are to be provided where the property is to be let out. Therefore, the facilities are incidental and ancillary to the predominate nature of transaction being letting out of the premises. In case

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

section 153A of the Act the Assessing Officer made various additions by examining the Profit & Loss Account, Tax Audit Report and assessed income was computed at ` 8,14,83,740. Claim u/s 24(a) from house property income (i) ` 1,36,709 disallowed Agricultural income has been treated as business (ii) ` 2,52,393 income Dividend income claimed exempt

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 24(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.18 On the above mentioned preposition, assessee placed reliance on following judgments – 1. (2009) 313 ITR 0340 (Bom. HC) Commissioner of Income Tax -Vs- Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 2. (2013) 88 DTR 0151 (Mum. ITAT) Windermere Properties (P) Ltd. –vs- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. 3. Judgment of Hon’ble ITAT

SHABBIR AHMED AHMED ALI,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESMENT CENTRY, DELHI

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

House Mortgage Society Ltd., City Survey No.659 of Mouza Mankapur, Nagpur at ` 80,50,000. Accordingly, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee furnished his reply along with its enclosures. The Assessing Officer, on a perusal of assessee’s reply, it was observed that the assessee has sold the said immovable property

VINAY RAMSHARANDAS AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

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

house property, income from capital gain and income from other sources. Necessary enquiries were conducted by the Assessing Officer by issuing 4 Vinay Ramsharandas Agrawal ITA no.110/Nag./2023 statutory notices in response to which the assessee furnished details of sources of income, capital introduction and specific details of capital gain were called and examined. The assessee, in response

SHRI PRAKASH JIWANDAS WANJARI,NAGPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

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

house property and for his medical treatment. The assessee is therefore giving contradictory statements regarding the purpose o the cash loans and hence his explanation is not satisfactory. 20 With reference to this the appellant wishes to submit that he its already stated in his submission about the no knowledge of income tax act, he is facing such type

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

90,000/-shown in the books of account as cash in hand. The assessee offered, for surrender, an amount of Rs. 10 lacs on account of stock not entered in the books of account, relating to debtors. The assessee further offered an amount of Rs. 21 lacs representing the amount entered in the books of account towards stock as against

SHAILESH CHAMPAKLAL VAKHARIA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (CENTRAL) CIRCLE - 1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

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

section 69A and added to the total income by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A).” 4. The learned Departmental Representative has made submissions vide Para–2 and 3, quoted above in the gist of submissions filed by the learned Departmental Representative. 5. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted a Paper Book containing the following

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

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

house property of Rs.1,05,000/- as business income 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.37,012/-and treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction u/s.24 by the assessee 6. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

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

house property of Rs.1,05,000/- as business income 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.37,012/-and treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction u/s.24 by the assessee 6. On the facts and in the circumstances

SUFALAM INFRA PROJECTS LTD ,NAGPUR vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL ), NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

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

Section 27(iii), (iiia) and (iiib) which redefined the expression owner of house property', in respect of which there was a sharp divergence of opinion amongst the High Courts, was clarificatory and declaratory in nature and consequently retrospective. Similarly, in Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT (1997) 90

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. SUFLAM INFRA PROJECT LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

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

Section 27(iii), (iiia) and (iiib) which redefined the expression owner of house property', in respect of which there was a sharp divergence of opinion amongst the High Courts, was clarificatory and declaratory in nature and consequently retrospective. Similarly, in Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT (1997) 90

M/S NEW VIRAJ HOUSING AGENCY,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the three years is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

90,91,140/- for AY 2011-12 and Rs 1,12,27,727/- for AY 2012-13. Aggrieved with the said decision the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 4. During the proceedings before the first appellate authority, the Ld. counsel for the assessee contended that only survey action u/s 133A was carried out at the aforesaid

SHRI SHRI GURVINDER SINGH SASAN, L/H OF LATE SHRI JAGDISH SINGH SASAN,NAGPUR vs. THE ITO-WARD-2(2),, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Sh. Mahavir Singhsh. Gurvinder Singh Sasan, Vs Ito, L/H Of Late Sh. Jagdish Singh Sasan, Ward–2(2), C/O–Kasjmir Bar & Restaurant, 3Ed Floor, Ayakar Gaddogudam Chowk, Nagpur–440001. Bhawan, Nagpur Pan–Aeyps3694G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh.K.P.Dewani, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Jitesh Kumar Date Of Hearing 07.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2018

section 54 of the Act and thereby he computed long term capital gain at Rs.18,13,900/- and added to the returned income of the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). 4. Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by observing in par 10.7 as under:- 10.7. “As per the layout plan / map approved

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

90,976 Travel M.B. Travel ` 12,32,787 ` 13,27,528 ` 57,17,903 ` 57,17,903 Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain A.Y. 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07, 2007–08 & 2008–09 ITA no.64/Nag./2015 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2004–05 4. Facts in Brief:– In the present case, the assessee is the Proprietor of M.B. Travels, doing business

MISS FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

90,976 Travel M.B. Travel ` 12,32,787 ` 13,27,528 ` 57,17,903 ` 57,17,903 Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain A.Y. 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07, 2007–08 & 2008–09 ITA no.64/Nag./2015 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2004–05 4. Facts in Brief:– In the present case, the assessee is the Proprietor of M.B. Travels, doing business

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

90,976 Travel M.B. Travel ` 12,32,787 ` 13,27,528 ` 57,17,903 ` 57,17,903 Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain A.Y. 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07, 2007–08 & 2008–09 ITA no.64/Nag./2015 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2004–05 4. Facts in Brief:– In the present case, the assessee is the Proprietor of M.B. Travels, doing business