DY. C.I.T. CIR-.5, NAGPUR vs. M/S AVANTHA HOLDINGS LTD.,, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

carrying on activity of business. A.O. has differed with appellant by observing that expenditure incurred is in the nature of capital expenditure. Details of expenses on record clearly depict that they are in the nature of revenue expenditure incurred in the course of day to day activity of business. Each of expenditure claimed is allowable business expenditure in terms

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR vs. AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

carrying on activity of business. A.O. has differed with appellant by\nobserving that expenditure incurred is in the nature of capital expenditure.\nDetails of expenses on record clearly depict that they are in the nature of\nrevenue expenditure incurred in the course of day to day activity of business.\nEach of expenditure claimed is allowable business expenditure in terms

DAYAL AGRO PRODUCTS LTD,AKOLA vs. JCIT, AKOLA RANGE, AKOLA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

transferred to the family members and/or existing shareholders of the group and not to any outsider. In this regard, the assessee filed the explanation vide letter dt. 01/11/2012.”. 5. Being aggrieved, the matter was carried to CIT (Appeals). The assessee has made a detailed submission before the CIT(A) as contained in Dayal Agro Products Ltd vs. JCIT, Akola

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE , AKOLA vs. AKOLA URBAN CO-OPRATIVE BANK LTD , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

forward for subsequent years was reduced. Being aggrieved, appeal was preferred. 3 The Akola Urban Co–operative Bank Ltd. ITA no.119/Nag./2020 4. The learned CIT(A) elaborately dealt with the issue vide Para–5.1 to 5.3.3 of his order and granted relief on the issue of loss of NPAs by holding as under:– “5.1 During the assessment proceedings

ASSTT. CIT, CIR- 7, NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEWQUEST CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

price of Rs.7 Crore. From a detailed review of the aforesaid financial arrangement, one can easily ascertain that the net loss suffered by the assessee company is loss Rs.9,26,00,000/- on transfer of shares owned by the assessee in I-BILT.’’ 7 ACIT, CIRCLE-7, NAGPUR VS M/s. Newquest Corporation Ltd. (Now known as Avantha Holdings

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

Loss of the assessee were real and genuine without analyzing the incriminating circumstances given the dismissal of SLP by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 21636/2024 in the case of Manoj Jain (HUF) against the order of Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in GA No. 1/2024 in which the Hon'ble High Court held that no substantial

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

Loss of the assessee were real and genuine without analyzing the incriminating circumstances given the dismissal of SLP by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 21636/2024 in the case of Manoj Jain (HUF) against the order of Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in GA No. 1/2024 in which the Hon'ble High Court held that no substantial

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

Loss of the assessee were real and genuine without analyzing the incriminating circumstances given the dismissal of SLP by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 21636/2024 in the case of Manoj Jain (HUF) against the order of Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in GA No. 1/2024 in which the Hon'ble High Court held that no substantial

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

Loss Account, this difference was Rs.9.30 Crores. Thus, the Respondent had agreed on 16.2.2008 to addition of Rs.10 Crores being made. However, at the end of subject Assessment Year in its return of income the Respondent had not offered the additional income of Rs.10 Crores. Nevertheless, the Assessing Officer proceeded to add Rs.10 Crores being the additional income on account

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

Loss Account, this difference was Rs.9.30 Crores. Thus, the Respondent had agreed on 16.2.2008 to addition of Rs.10 Crores being made. However, at the end of subject Assessment Year in its return of income the Respondent had not offered the additional income of Rs.10 Crores. Nevertheless, the Assessing Officer proceeded to add Rs.10 Crores being the additional income on account

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

Loss Account, this difference was Rs.9.30 Crores. Thus, the Respondent had agreed on 16.2.2008 to addition of Rs.10 Crores being made. However, at the end of subject Assessment Year in its return of income the Respondent had not offered the additional income of Rs.10 Crores. Nevertheless, the Assessing Officer proceeded to add Rs.10 Crores being the additional income on account

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

Loss Account, this difference was Rs.9.30 Crores. Thus, the Respondent had agreed on 16.2.2008 to addition of Rs.10 Crores being made. However, at the end of subject Assessment Year in its return of income the Respondent had not offered the additional income of Rs.10 Crores. Nevertheless, the Assessing Officer proceeded to add Rs.10 Crores being the additional income on account

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

Loss Account, this difference was Rs.9.30 Crores. Thus, the Respondent had agreed on 16.2.2008 to addition of Rs.10 Crores being made. However, at the end of subject Assessment Year in its return of income the Respondent had not offered the additional income of Rs.10 Crores. Nevertheless, the Assessing Officer proceeded to add Rs.10 Crores being the additional income on account

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

Loss Account, this difference was Rs.9.30 Crores. Thus, the Respondent had agreed on 16.2.2008 to addition of Rs.10 Crores being made. However, at the end of subject Assessment Year in its return of income the Respondent had not offered the additional income of Rs.10 Crores. Nevertheless, the Assessing Officer proceeded to add Rs.10 Crores being the additional income on account

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Pricing Officer, as the case may be had been subject matter of any appeal filed on or before after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under this sub-section shall extended and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matter as had not been considered and decided in such appeal

THE AKOLA URBAN CO OP. BANK LTD,AKOLA vs. D.C.I.T. AKOLA CRICLE, AKOLA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

transfer of securities held under HTM category has to be allowed as business loss. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bank of Maharashtra (supra). The Co- ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Bank of Maharashtra Vs. DCIT (supra) while adjudicating this issue

THE AKOLA URBAN CO. OP. BANK LTD.,,AKOLA vs. DY. CIT- AKOLA CIRCLE,, AKOLA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

transfer of securities held under HTM category has to be allowed as business loss. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bank of Maharashtra (supra). The Co- ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Bank of Maharashtra Vs. DCIT (supra) while adjudicating this issue

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made