ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

164), while dealing with the non-obstante clause contained in the MAT provisions held as under: “The non obstante clause with which this section begins could only mean that the other sections which impose tax on book profit alone are to be ignored and not that the section which deems a capital receipt as income should

RAMKRUSHNA ZILBAJI THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WRAD -4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2), Thane (2016) 73 taxmann.com 68 (Mumbai Trib.), Smt. Madhu Raitani Vs. ACIT (2011) 10 Taxmann.com 206 (Gauhati)(TM), Mehul v. Vyas Vs. ITO(2014) 164 ITD 296(Mum) and ITO, Barabanki Vs. Kamal Jumar Mishra (2013) 33 taxmann.com 610(Lucknow) etc are discussed, considered and observed that: 9. After having gone through the facts and circumstances, we observe that

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

68 (TR 252: AIR 1968 SC 623, the Supreme Court of India observed that the rule that (page 257): "we must look to the general scope and purview of the statute, and at the remedy sought to be applied, and consider what was the former state of the law, and what it was that the Legislature contemplated' was Vidarbha Konkan

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

68 (TR 252: AIR 1968 SC 623, the Supreme Court of India observed that the rule that (page 257): "we must look to the general scope and purview of the statute, and at the remedy sought to be applied, and consider what was the former state of the law, and what it was that the Legislature contemplated' was Vidarbha Konkan

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 68 of the Act is unjustified and unsustainable.In this case, Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v/s Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 764 (Gujarat). their Lordships have held as follows:- \"9. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned advocates for the respective parties and the orders impugned in this appeal, what is evident is that the amount

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

164(2) applies to the whole or a part of the relevant income of a charitable or religious trust which forfeits 8 exemptions by virtue of the provisions of the IT Act in regard to investment pattern or use of the trust property for the benefit of the settlor, etc., contained in section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

164(2) applies to the whole or a part of the relevant income of a charitable or religious trust which forfeits 8 exemptions by virtue of the provisions of the IT Act in regard to investment pattern or use of the trust property for the benefit of the settlor, etc., contained in section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2 (1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

164(2) applies to the whole or a part of the relevant income of a charitable or religious trust which forfeits 8 exemptions by virtue of the provisions of the IT Act in regard to investment pattern or use of the trust property for the benefit of the settlor, etc., contained in section

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

section 68 of the Act\nis unjustified and unsustainable.In this case, Principal Commissioner of\nIncome-tax v/s Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 764\n(Gujarat). their Lordships have held as follows:-\n\"9. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned advocates\nfor the respective parties and the orders impugned in this appeal, what\nis evident is that

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

68 was not sustainable.” 12 Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal ITA no.375/Nag./2024 1.16. It is evident from the above jurisprudence that the assessee was not required to disclose the source of the source and had no responsibility for verifying the source of income in the hands of lender. Thus, considering the facts of the case and in the light of documentary

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

section 68 of the Act\nis unjustified and unsustainable.In this case, Principal Commissioner of\nIncome-tax v/s Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 764\n(Gujarat). their Lordships have held as follows:-\n\"9. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned advocates\nfor the respective parties and the orders impugned in this appeal, what\nis evident is that

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. VISHNU GILTS PVT.LT, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

164 taxmann.com 464 (SC). 17. The assessment year involved in present case is A.Y. 2012-13. We find that THE provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the present case since the aforesaid provisions have been inserted for the first time vide Finance Act 2012 i.e., w.e.f 01/04/2013. Similarly

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, NAGPUR vs. M/S RAGHAV FINVEST PVT LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

164 taxmann.com 464 (SC). 17. The assessment year involved in present case is A.Y. 2012-13. We find that THE provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the present case since the aforesaid provisions have been inserted for the first time vide Finance Act 2012 i.e., w.e.f 01/04/2013. Similarly

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. M/S NIHAL GITS PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

164 taxmann.com 464 (SC). 17. The assessment year involved in present case is A.Y. 2012-13. We find that THE provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are not applicable to the facts of the present case since the aforesaid provisions have been inserted for the first time vide Finance Act 2012 i.e., w.e.f 01/04/2013. Similarly

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 68 of the Act\nis unjustified and unsustainable.In this case, Principal Commissioner of\nIncome-tax v/s Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 764\n(Gujarat). their Lordships have held as follows:-\n\"9. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned advocates\nfor the respective parties and the orders impugned in this appeal, what\nis evident is that

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

section 68 of the Act\nis unjustified and unsustainable.In this case, Principal Commissioner of\nIncome-tax v/s Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 764\n(Gujarat). their Lordships have held as follows:-\n\"9. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned advocates\nfor the respective parties and the orders impugned in this appeal, what\nis evident is that

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

section 68 of the Act\nis unjustified and unsustainable.In this case, Principal Commissioner of\nIncome-tax v/s Merrygold Gems (P.) Ltd. [2024] 164 taxmann.com 764\n(Gujarat). their Lordships have held as follows:-\n\"9. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned advocates\nfor the respective parties and the orders impugned in this appeal, what\nis evident is that

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Nagpur erred in not appreciating the larger vicious cycle wherein larger network created to provide accommodation entries. 3. Any other ground which may be raised during the course of hearing.‖ 2 M/s. N. Kumar Construction