SHRI GO0VINDDAS GOVARDHANDAS DAGA,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

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

section 35(1)(ii) etc.” 8. Consequently, we hold that the grounds no.1 and 2, raised by the assessee do not contain any merits which are accordingly dismissed. 9. Insofar as grounds no.3 and 4, are concerned, the issue raised by the assessee relates to the addition of ` 2,17,500, on account of agricultural income treating the same

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.2, NAGPUR vs. SHRI GOVINDDAS GOVERDHAN DAGA, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

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

section 35(1)(ii) etc.” 8. Consequently, we hold that the grounds no.1 and 2, raised by the assessee do not contain any merits which are accordingly dismissed. 9. Insofar as grounds no.3 and 4, are concerned, the issue raised by the assessee relates to the addition of ` 2,17,500, on account of agricultural income treating the same

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

ii). 12. Whenever the exemption under section 11 is to be denied the income of the trust is to be computed as per the specific provisions of section 164(2) provided in the statute, which are reproduced below for ready reference:– ―164(2) In the case of relevant income which is derived from property held under trust wholly

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

ii). 12. Whenever the exemption under section 11 is to be denied the income of the trust is to be computed as per the specific provisions of section 164(2) provided in the statute, which are reproduced below for ready reference:– ―164(2) In the case of relevant income which is derived from property held under trust wholly

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

ii). 12. Whenever the exemption under section 11 is to be denied the income of the trust is to be computed as per the specific provisions of section 164(2) provided in the statute, which are reproduced below for ready reference:– ―164(2) In the case of relevant income which is derived from property held under trust wholly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCEL-1(2, NAGPUR vs. M/S. VIBRANT GLOBAL CAPITAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

68 of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified. Reliance on: i) (1986) 159 ITR 0078 (S.C) CIT v/s Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (P- 1 to 7) [Vol. – V] (3, 7) ii) ITAT, Indore Bench order in ITA No.361/Ind/2022 in the case of Shri Kanwarjeet Singh Nanda vide order dated 20/11/2023

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

35] 3.4 Therefore, the very fact that the loan was used for the purpose of the business of a related concern is quite evident. As the newly formed Private Limited company could not borrow more from for the financial institutions the only option available was to mobilize funds from the open market. However, as the Company Acts prohibit direct acceptance

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

II vide Appeal No.CIT(A)- 3/279/2016-17 order dated 29/01/2018. The relevant portion of order of Hon'ble CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder: 6. I find that the appellant has made detailed submissions and given supporting evidence. I find substantial force in the submission given by the appellant. The appellant during the course of assessment proceedings had submitted confirmation, copy

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

II vide Appeal No.CIT(A)- 3/279/2016-17 order dated 29/01/2018. The relevant portion of order of Hon'ble CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder: 6. I find that the appellant has made detailed submissions and given supporting evidence. I find substantial force in the submission given by the appellant. The appellant during the course of assessment proceedings had submitted confirmation, copy

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

II vide Appeal No.CIT(A)- 3/279/2016-17 order dated 29/01/2018. The relevant portion of order of Hon'ble CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder: 6. I find that the appellant has made detailed submissions and given supporting evidence. I find substantial force in the submission given by the appellant. The appellant during the course of assessment proceedings had submitted confirmation, copy

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

II vide Appeal No.CIT(A)- 3/279/2016-17 order dated 29/01/2018. The relevant portion of order of Hon'ble CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder: 6. I find that the appellant has made detailed submissions and given supporting evidence. I find substantial force in the submission given by the appellant. The appellant during the course of assessment proceedings had submitted confirmation, copy

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

II vide Appeal No.CIT(A)- 3/279/2016-17 order dated 29/01/2018. The relevant portion of order of Hon'ble CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder: 6. I find that the appellant has made detailed submissions and given supporting evidence. I find substantial force in the submission given by the appellant. The appellant during the course of assessment proceedings had submitted confirmation, copy

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

II vide Appeal No.CIT(A)- 3/279/2016-17 order dated 29/01/2018. The relevant portion of order of Hon'ble CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder: 6. I find that the appellant has made detailed submissions and given supporting evidence. I find substantial force in the submission given by the appellant. The appellant during the course of assessment proceedings had submitted confirmation, copy

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

35 premises were covered u/s 132(1) of the I.T. Act. 2. During the course of search action at the office premises of Shri Suresh Kumar Agrawal, one f the Directors of M/s. Rashi Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd. at no.28 & 29, 2nd Floor, 9 Mangoe Lane, Hare Street, Kolkata on 22.01.2019, many documents were found and seized

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

35 premises were covered u/s 132(1) of the I.T. Act. 2. During the course of search action at the office premises of Shri Suresh Kumar Agrawal, one f the Directors of M/s. Rashi Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd. at no.28 & 29, 2nd Floor, 9 Mangoe Lane, Hare Street, Kolkata on 22.01.2019, many documents were found and seized

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

35 premises were covered u/s 132(1) of the I.T. Act. 2. During the course of search action at the office premises of Shri Suresh Kumar Agrawal, one f the Directors of M/s. Rashi Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd. at no.28 & 29, 2nd Floor, 9 Mangoe Lane, Hare Street, Kolkata on 22.01.2019, many documents were found and seized

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

35 premises were covered u/s 132(1) of the I.T. Act. 2. During the course of search action at the office premises of Shri Suresh Kumar Agrawal, one f the Directors of M/s. Rashi Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd. at no.28 & 29, 2nd Floor, 9 Mangoe Lane, Hare Street, Kolkata on 22.01.2019, many documents were found and seized

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

35 premises were covered u/s 132(1) of the I.T. Act. 2. During the course of search action at the office premises of Shri Suresh Kumar Agrawal, one f the Directors of M/s. Rashi Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd. at no.28 & 29, 2nd Floor, 9 Mangoe Lane, Hare Street, Kolkata on 22.01.2019, many documents were found and seized

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ii. Affidavit of Chandrashekhar Thakre, witness to the agreement to sale dt.09-01-2009 Of 15. However CIT appeal rejected the appeal of the assessee on following grounds.; 1. That the appellant produced a copy of unregistered agreement. That unregistered document can not be used as evidence of collateral purposes ; but for such the document must be duly stamped or should comply