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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 68 of the Act. For such arguments, the learned A.R. relied on the following case laws:–  CIT v/s Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (2008) 183 taxmann.com 277 (Del.); and  Ravindra Arunachala Nadar v/s ACIT (2021) 129 taxmann.com 275 (Chen-Trib). 18. Further, it is submitted that similarly, addition of ` 3,99,600 on account of interest on such

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 68 of the Act. For such arguments, the learned A.R. relied on the following case laws:–  CIT v/s Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (2008) 183 taxmann.com 277 (Del.); and  Ravindra Arunachala Nadar v/s ACIT (2021) 129 taxmann.com 275 (Chen-Trib). 18. Further, it is submitted that similarly, addition of ` 3,99,600 on account of interest on such

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 68 of the Act. For such arguments, the learned A.R. relied on the following case laws:–  CIT v/s Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (2008) 183 taxmann.com 277 (Del.); and  Ravindra Arunachala Nadar v/s ACIT (2021) 129 taxmann.com 275 (Chen-Trib). 18. Further, it is submitted that similarly, addition of ` 3,99,600 on account of interest on such

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 68 of the Act. For such arguments, the learned A.R. relied on the following case laws:–  CIT v/s Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (2008) 183 taxmann.com 277 (Del.); and  Ravindra Arunachala Nadar v/s ACIT (2021) 129 taxmann.com 275 (Chen-Trib). 18. Further, it is submitted that similarly, addition of ` 3,99,600 on account of interest on such

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 68 of the Act. For such arguments, the learned A.R. relied on the following case laws:–  CIT v/s Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (2008) 183 taxmann.com 277 (Del.); and  Ravindra Arunachala Nadar v/s ACIT (2021) 129 taxmann.com 275 (Chen-Trib). 18. Further, it is submitted that similarly, addition of ` 3,99,600 on account of interest on such

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 68 of the Act. For such arguments, the learned A.R. relied on the following case laws:–  CIT v/s Usha Stud Agricultural Farms Ltd. (2008) 183 taxmann.com 277 (Del.); and  Ravindra Arunachala Nadar v/s ACIT (2021) 129 taxmann.com 275 (Chen-Trib). 18. Further, it is submitted that similarly, addition of ` 3,99,600 on account of interest on such

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTAL CIRCLE -2(2) , NAGPUR vs. SHRI NARENDRA MAGANMAL KOTHARI , NAGPUR

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

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

275/-. (ii) Unsecured loan u/s. 68 of Rs. 2,95,00,876/- The Hon'ble ITAT has not taken into account the deletion made by the CIT(A) of Rs. 2,95,00,079/–“ 5. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are also reproduced below:– “iv. On the facts and circumstances of the case

ACIT ,CIRCLE (EXEMPTION ),NAGPUR , NAGPUR vs. M/S SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL ,AMRAVAI , AMRAVATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Acit, Vs. M/S. Sipnashikshan Prasarak Mandal Circle (Exemption), Badnera Road Amravati Amravati Pan No.:Aacts 1266 J Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shripiyushkolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shrihimeshdemble (Ca) Date Of Hearing: 26/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-4, Nagpur Dated 27/03/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 Wherein The Department Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

68,475/- is confirmed and the AO is directed to delete the remaining addition. 15. I have considered the facts of the case, the material on record and judicial precedence relied upon by the applicant and appellant’s submission. The appellant has maintained details of name and addressed of the donors and has submitted the same to the A.O. Looking

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3), NAGPUR vs. NARESH NARAYANDAS RAMRAKHYANI, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the assessee was responsive during the course of assessment proceedings. 2. Any other ground that may be raised during the course of appellate proceedings.” 2 Naresh Narayandas Ramrakhyani ITA no.632–633/Nag./2024 3. For A.Y. 2015–16, we deem it expedient to reproduce below the impugned order passed

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3), NAGPUR vs. NARESH NARAYANDAS RAMRAKHYANI, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when the assessee was responsive during the course of assessment proceedings. 2. Any other ground that may be raised during the course of appellate proceedings.” 2 Naresh Narayandas Ramrakhyani ITA no.632–633/Nag./2024 3. For A.Y. 2015–16, we deem it expedient to reproduce below the impugned order passed