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

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 u/s 10(34) (iii) ` 20,15,681 treated as income from other sources Unsecured loan

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

property or investment and submit a copy of report to him.‖ 17. Thus no reference to Valuation Officer by Assessing Officer. It is worthwhile to note that in order under section 155(15) of the Act, the 18 SushilaBhauraoDeshmukh ITAno.76/Nag./2022 Assessing Officer has accepted the claim of assessee at ` 112 lakh in set aside proceedings. The learned PCIT

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year

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

housing project as construction activity and further calculating the income from this construction activity of the appellant at the rate of 8% based on presumption basis of taxation provided in Section 44AD. Hence your Honor is requested to consider the matter in above perspective and kindly delete the additions made by the learned

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

property and securities during the year under consideration. Details of computation of capital gain are evident from the copy of income tax return placed on record on record in Paper Book Page–34 to 82, wherein, at Page–65 & 66, working of capital gain is disclosed. It clearly gives the break-up of indexed cost of acquisition and cost

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

set aside. Whereas, in cases where the assessment/re–assessment proceedings have already been completed and assessment orders have been passed determining the total income and such orders are subsisting at the time when the search or requisition is made, there is no question of any abatement since no proceeding are pending. Similarly, the appellate proceedings before learned CIT(A)), Income

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

set aside. Whereas, in cases where the assessment/re–assessment proceedings have already been completed and assessment orders have been passed determining the total income and such orders are subsisting at the time when the search or requisition is made, there is no question of any abatement since no proceeding are pending. Similarly, the appellate proceedings before learned CIT(A)), Income

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

loss to revenue is caused, then the AO should levy any type of penalty on him. In the appellant's case the AO has in the scrutiny assessment proceedings never doubted the genuineness of the appellant's submissions and also the fact that the appellant was actually not aware of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being

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

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

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.\nThe 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. Year 2013-2014 and the same were shown in the balance

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

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 Taxman 41 (SC), explanation 2 added to section 40of the Act was held to be declaratory in nature and, therefore, retrospective. (Reference Page

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

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 Taxman 41 (SC), explanation 2 added to section 40of the Act was held to be declaratory in nature and, therefore, retrospective. (Reference Page

DCIT-CC-1(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. R.B.S.D. AND F.N. DAS(EXPORT FIRM), VIZIANAGRAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

Loss a/c under the head Building repairs and maintenance. However, during search proceeding in the statement of Shri Manvendra Mor, partner of the firm, agreed to withdraw claim of this expenditure. Accordingly, in the assessment order, the AO has made addition of Rs. 74,51,358/-. However, AO has invoked s. 69C r.w.s. 115BBE which is under challenge in present

SHREE MAYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

loss as ` (–) 48,45,771. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. 6. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer by observing as follows:– Shree Maya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.227–228/Nag./2022 “During

SHREE MAYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

loss as ` (–) 48,45,771. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. 6. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer by observing as follows:– Shree Maya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.227–228/Nag./2022 “During

SHRI DEEPAK SURESH GADGE,,NAGPUR vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1 , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

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

houses thereon. The said land has been purchased by the firm, through the assessee as partner, vide purchase deed dated 05/09/2008, and correction deed dated 02/07/2009 for ` 22,50,000. According to the Assessing Officer, this land has been taken by the assessee into stock for previous year in his books of accounts. Since the assessee is engaged

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

loss account is particularly concerning and undermines the claim. 6 Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal ITA no.375/Nag./2024 Compliance with Tax Laws: Proper adherence to accounting standards and tax laws is crucial. Expenses claimed for tax deductions must be transparently recorded and justifiably linked to income generation. Based on the analysis of the documents presented and the legal framework

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

sets out certain further conditions which is required to be fulfilled before issuing notice u/s153C, more so, reason for escaped income of Rs.22,46,300 is below the limit of Rs.50 lakhs; in absence of valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s153C, assessment made u/s143(3) rws.153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed.” Additional Ground no.2 “On the facts & circumstances

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

sets out certain further conditions which is required to be fulfilled before issuing notice u/s153C, more so, reason for escaped income of Rs.22,46,300 is below the limit of Rs.50 lakhs; in absence of valid assumption of jurisdiction u/s153C, assessment made u/s143(3) rws.153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed.” Additional Ground no.2 “On the facts & circumstances