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

90,30,908 iii) Under section 80P(2)(d) 5. The assessee–society revised its claim of deduction under section 80P, during scrutiny proceeding, in following manner:– Sr. Deduction claimed u/s Amount no. i) Under section 80P(2)(a)(i) ` 34,14,217 ii) Under section 80P(2)(c)(i) NIL iii) Under section

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

90,30,908 iii) Under section 80P(2)(d) 5. The assessee–society revised its claim of deduction under section 80P, during scrutiny proceeding, in following manner:– Sr. Deduction claimed u/s Amount no. i) Under section 80P(2)(a)(i) ` 34,14,217 ii) Under section 80P(2)(c)(i) NIL iii) Under section

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

90 ITD 654) while dealing with the question as to whether the amount written back (ie. Credited to profit and loss account) can be reduced from the book profit, held that MAT is levied on the real book profit which have been earned by the assessee and not on artificial income, which have not accrued to the assessee

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

90 ITD 654) while dealing with the question as to whether the amount written back (ie. Credited to profit and loss account) can be reduced from the book profit, held that MAT is levied on the real book profit which have been earned by the assessee and not on artificial income, which have not accrued to the assessee

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

68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Original return of income

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

68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Original return of income

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

68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Original return of income

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

68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Original return of income

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

68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Original return of income

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

68 for Rs.1.65 crores Rs. 55,00,000/- Total Tax Effect Rs. 55,00,000/- 2. The order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, PCIT(C), dated 8/10/2018 for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 is reproduced below: “ORDER U/S 263 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 Original return of income

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

90% of the addition made by Assessing Officer stating that the Assessing Officer himself concluded that the entries in the impugned documents did not belong to the assessee and that the additions have been made in cases of other parties. However, 10% of the transaction, aggregating to ₹ 19,577, was treated by the learned CIT(A) as income

UMESH SADASHIV THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

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

90% of the addition made by Assessing Officer stating that the Assessing Officer himself concluded that the entries in the impugned documents did not belong to the assessee and that the additions have been made in cases of other parties. However, 10% of the transaction, aggregating to ₹ 19,577, was treated by the learned CIT(A) as income

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

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

90% of the addition made by Assessing Officer stating that the Assessing Officer himself concluded that the entries in the impugned documents did not belong to the assessee and that the additions have been made in cases of other parties. However, 10% of the transaction, aggregating to ₹ 19,577, was treated by the learned CIT(A) as income

SUFALAM INFRA PROJECTS LTD ,NAGPUR vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL ), NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

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

90 Taxman 41 (SC), explanation 2 added to section 40of the Act was held to be declaratory in nature and, therefore, retrospective. (Reference Page 569-570, Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 13th Ed.). The written submissions of the assessee and the facts as emerging from the records are carefully considered. From the records it is observed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. SUFLAM INFRA PROJECT LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

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

90 Taxman 41 (SC), explanation 2 added to section 40of the Act was held to be declaratory in nature and, therefore, retrospective. (Reference Page 569-570, Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 13th Ed.). The written submissions of the assessee and the facts as emerging from the records are carefully considered. From the records it is observed

UMESH SADASHIV THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

90% of the addition made by Assessing Officer stating that the Assessing Officer himself concluded that the entries in the impugned documents did not belong to the assessee and that the additions have been made in cases of other parties. However, 10% of the transaction, aggregating to ₹ 19,577, was treated by the learned CIT(A) as income

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

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 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment