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

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

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 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

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 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

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

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

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

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. 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

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