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

68 or 69A, excess stock is covered u/s 69 or 69B, construction of Shed/Godown is covered u/s 69B or 69C and advances made to Sundry Parties is covered u/s 69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3 NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. SWASTIK PETRO CHEM (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

198–P, MIDC ……………. Respondent Butibori, Nagpur 441 108 PAN – AAHCS2889P Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 06/01/2025 Date of Order – 27/01/2025 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. This appeal by the Revenue is emanating from the impugned order dated 27/05/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

198 ITR 511 (Cal) where the court held that\nfirst and second appeal is a continuation of assessment proceedings.\n7. That the Appellant would like to rely on the Judgement of Honorable\nKarnataka High Court Judgment in case of Guttigedarara Credit Co-Operative\nSociety Limited v. Income Tax where the amount which was invested in banks\nto earn interest

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

198 ITR 511 (Cal) where the court held that first and second appeal is a continuation of assessment proceedings. 7. That the Appellant would like to rely on the Judgement of Honorable Karnataka High Court Judgment in case of Guttigedarara Credit Co-Operative Society Limited v. Income Tax where the amount which was invested in banks to earn interest

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

198 ITR 511 (Cal) where the court held that first and second appeal is a continuation of assessment proceedings. 7. That the Appellant would like to rely on the Judgement of Honorable Karnataka High Court Judgment in case of Guttigedarara Credit Co-Operative Society Limited v. Income Tax where the amount which was invested in banks to earn interest

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

198 ITR 511 (Cal) where the court held that first and second appeal is a continuation of assessment proceedings. 7. That the Appellant would like to rely on the Judgement of Honorable Karnataka High Court Judgment in case of Guttigedarara Credit Co-Operative Society Limited v. Income Tax where the amount which was invested in banks to earn interest

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

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

198 at 203) (SC); Ellerman Lines Ltd versus CIT (82 ITR 913 at 920-1) (SC); K.P. Varghese (131 ITR 597); and UCO Bank versus CIT (237 ITR 89) (SC). The aforesaid amendment carried out by the Finance Act, 2015 to section 2(24) of the Act is applicable prospectively from Assessment Year 2016-17 and onwards. Based

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

198 at 203) (SC); Ellerman Lines Ltd versus CIT (82 ITR 913 at 920-1) (SC); K.P. Varghese (131 ITR 597); and UCO Bank versus CIT (237 ITR 89) (SC). The aforesaid amendment carried out by the Finance Act, 2015 to section 2(24) of the Act is applicable prospectively from Assessment Year 2016-17 and onwards. Based

NARAYAN BHAGYACHANDRA KHATRI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Narayan Bhagyachandra Khatri Acit, Amravati Circle, Amravati Flat No. Sp-2/102, Streling Springdale Vs Aayakarbhavan, Near Dps School, Apartment, Raj Nagar, Nagpur, Saturna, Amravati, Maharashtra – 440013. Maharashtra – 440006. [Pan: Aaccg4441J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, New Delhi dated 10.07.2024 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017–18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. THAT considering the facts of the case, the learned AO erred in rejecting