DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

28 and not under section 56 of the Act and, consequently, the assessee(s) was entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The argument was rejected by the assessing officer as also by the Tribunal and the High Court, hence these civil appeals have been filed by the assessee(s). 19.2 From

DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

28 and not under section 56 of the Act and, consequently, the assessee(s) was entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The argument was rejected by the assessing officer as also by the Tribunal and the High Court, hence these civil appeals have been filed by the assessee(s). 19.2 From

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

68,82,917 constituted excess claim, which was disallowed. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Com- missioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who agreed with the Assessing Officer and, accordingly, took the view that once the management in its books spread over the amount of Rs. 10,02,23,735 over a period of 60 months then

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

68,82,917 constituted excess claim, which was disallowed. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Com- missioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who agreed with the Assessing Officer and, accordingly, took the view that once the management in its books spread over the amount of Rs. 10,02,23,735 over a period of 60 months then

AXYKNO CAPITAL SERVICES LTD,,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, NAGPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

section 68 of the Act in both the assessment years in the impugned appeals. 28 ITA 178/NAG/ 2017 AXYKNO CAPITAL SERVICES LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE- 1,NAGPUR 10. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28 /06 /2022 (ARUN KHODPIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Nagpur DATED: 28 /06 /2022 *Mishra

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,38,21,488/- made by the AO as there had been no rejection of books of account u/s 145 failing to appreciate that by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.10.2014 the amendment in section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER , NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,38,21,488/- made by the AO as there had been no rejection of books of account u/s 145 failing to appreciate that by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.10.2014 the amendment in section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA RADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,38,21,488/- made by the AO as there had been no rejection of books of account u/s 145 failing to appreciate that by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.10.2014 the amendment in section

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,38,21,488/- made by the AO as there had been no rejection of books of account u/s 145 failing to appreciate that by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.10.2014 the amendment in section

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,38,21,488/- made by the AO as there had been no rejection of books of account u/s 145 failing to appreciate that by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.10.2014 the amendment in section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,38,21,488/- made by the AO as there had been no rejection of books of account u/s 145 failing to appreciate that by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f 01.10.2014 the amendment in section

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

2 is allowed. 8.0 In the 3rd Ground of Appeal, the AO has rejected the claim of the appellant for Rs.2,68,07,020/- as deduction of 20% of profit on creation of special reserve u/s 36(1) (viii). The appellant has to create a special reserve equivalent to the deduction allowable as per the said section. The appellant

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

2 is allowed. 8.0 In the 3rd Ground of Appeal, the AO has rejected the claim of the appellant for Rs.2,68,07,020/- as deduction of 20% of profit on creation of special reserve u/s 36(1) (viii). The appellant has to create a special reserve equivalent to the deduction allowable as per the said section. The appellant

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

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

2) That no incriminating document was found as a result of search and therefore the additions made in the proceedings u/s 153A are void and bad in law. (3) That the learned AO erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs.72,68,000/- holding that the assessee has earned commission. On the facts and circumstances

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

2) That no incriminating document was found as a result of search and therefore the additions made in the proceedings u/s 153A are void and bad in law. (3) That the learned AO erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs.72,68,000/- holding that the assessee has earned commission. On the facts and circumstances

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

28 Rajesh B Khandelwal 20,075 2,008 29 Ravindra Gopidasji Mohata 14,250 1,425 30 Ravindra M Khandelwal HUF 1,15,125 11,513 Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal ITA no.375/Nag./2024 31 Ravindrakumar Harikisanji Chandak 5,167 517 32 S K Udyog 10,920 1,092 33 Sandip Tejpalji Shah 27,191 2,719 34 Sanjay Industries

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

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

2) That no incriminating document was found as a result of search and therefore the additions made in the proceedings u/s 153A are void and bad in law. (3) That the learned AO erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs.72,68,000/- holding that the assessee has earned commission. On the facts and circumstances

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

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

2) That no incriminating document was found as a result of search and therefore the additions made in the proceedings u/s 153A are void and bad in law. (3) That the learned AO erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs.72,68,000/- holding that the assessee has earned commission. On the facts and circumstances