HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

TDS is deducted. It is seen that the assessee has not filed his return of income for AY 2015-16. The above transactions, total to amount Rs.1,32,51,842/- remain unexplained and there is escapement of income in absence of return of income filed. Thus income from above transaction has not been offered

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

TDS is deducted. It is seen that the assessee has not filed his return of income for AY 2015-16. The above transactions, total to amount Rs.1,32,51,842/- remain unexplained and there is escapement of income in absence of return of income filed. Thus income from above transaction has not been offered

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

TDS is deducted. It is seen that the assessee has not filed his return of income for AY 2015-16. The above transactions, total to amount Rs.1,32,51,842/- remain unexplained and there is escapement of income in absence of return of income filed. Thus income from above transaction has not been offered

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the A

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

income on account of disallowance u/s. 43B of the Act. The Hon‟ble High Court was pleased to hold therein that the enhancement resulted in increase in the business profit of the assessee which was eligible for deduction u/s 10A. The Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Saba Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1454/Bom/2009

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

TDS is deducted. It is seen that the assessee has not\nfiled his return of income for AY 2015-16. The above transactions, total to\namount Rs.1,32,51,842/- remain unexplained and there is escapement of\nincome in absence of return of income filed. Thus income from above\ntransaction has not been offered

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI DHARAMPAL R.AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

business by the assessee. The AO has clearly stated in the remand report that this expenditure cannot be related to entries in the cash book.” Upon issuance of the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the learned Departmental Representative, Shri Sandipkumar Solanke, placed reliance

VIJAY VINOD DURAGKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

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

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

TDS Certificate i.e. case reopened on reasons to suspect, held is not valid. The Tribunal explained the distinction between reason to believe and reason to suspect. III. GENERAL ALLEGATION: INCOME SHOCKINGLY LOW: 3.1 In Rajendra Goud Chepur v. ITO (AP&T)(HC); www.itatonline.org: Merely because the assessee's income is "shockingly low" and others in the same line of business

DCIT-CC-1(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. R.B.S.D. AND F.N. DAS(EXPORT FIRM), VIZIANAGRAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

business and only thereafter he can make disallowance under the provisions of Income Tax Act. There is no provision provided under income tax act, empowering assessing officer to make disallowance on ad hoc basis without pointing out specific defect. Reliance is placed on following judgments- Katira Construction Ltd. V. ACIT (ITA No. 1000/Rjt/2010) M.V.A. Seetharaman Raju v. DCIT (unless assessing

MUJIB SALMANBHAI PATHAN,,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.98/Nag/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 ......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Mujib Salmanbhai Pathan, House No.242, Ward No.2, Old Area, Wardha Road, Butibori, Nagpur-441108. Pan : Aefpp0269M. बनाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……""यथ" / Respondent Circle-3, Nagpur. Assessee By : Shri Veena Agrawal Revenue By : Smt. Agnes P. Thomas. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 12.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Stating That The Subject, Whether Proper Approval Was Taken Before Converting Limited Scrutiny Into Complete Scrutiny Being Administrative Measure Cannot Be Taken Up. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs 1,00,85,013/- Made By The Ao As Income Under The Head Business & Profession Rightly Declared As Income Under The Head Capital Gains.

Income from business’. [Para 14]” 11. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it does not indicate that the purchase of land was made with the intention to re-sell. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Associated Industrial Development Co. (P.) Ltd., 82 ITR 586 held as under :- “The High Court went beyond

SATYENDRA L NAHATA ,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotefinancial Year : 2011-12 Satyendra L Nahata, The Commissioner Of C/O. Arihant Sales V Income Tax(Tds), Corporation, Bapurao Gall S Nagpur Blick, Nikalas Mandir, Nagpur – 440032. Pan: Aagpn1404M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Rishi Kumar Bisen – Dr Date Of Hearing 30/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 272A(2)(F) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Tds), Nagpur On 26.06.2018 For The F.Y. 2011-12. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under : “1) The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Levying Penalty U/S. 272A(2)(F) Of Rs.86,838/- Towards Non Submission Of Form 15G / 15H. Satyendra L Nahata [A]

Income Tax (TDS) grossly erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee being very small means person running small business

SUNILKUMAR RAJENDRA RAI,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

busy schedule of filing of return of income under Income Tax Law. Thus there is delay of 3218 days in filing appeals before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) Nagpur. 2. It is respectfully account of mistake of accountant of assessee and submitted that delay in submission of appeals is on there is no negligence on part of assessee

SHRI MAHESH DEVDUTTA GUPTA,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3),, NAGPUR

In the result, the addition so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

TDS certificates, which were enclosed with the return of income. It was submitted that in the earlier assessment year 2003–04, the Assessing 6 ITANo.143/Nag/2017 Officer assessed income from rent and service charges received from ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd and IDBI Bank Ltd. as income from House property. It was submitted that though the ld.CIT(A) invoked provisions

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSESSIG OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.20/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bajaj Steel Industries The Assessing Officer, Limited, Vs National E-Assessment 539/540, Imambada Road, Centre, Delhi. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaacb 5340 H Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajesh V. Loya – Ca Revenue By Shri Kailash Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac], Delhi Dated 22.12.2022 For A.Y.2018-19 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 24.04.2021. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : Bajaj Steel Industries Limited [A]

business loss to the extent of Rs.9,86,788/- pertaining to A.Y.2017-18 and duly claimed therein. The action of both the authorities in not allowing set off of such brought forward loss against income of year under consideration is highly unjustified. 13. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in sustaining the action

FRIENDS TIMBER PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

TDS, TCS and Income Tax. The amount of interest so paid being compensatory in nature and pertaining exclusively to the business

SANJAY KISAN CHOPDE,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.176/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sanjay Kisan Chopde, The Deputy Balaji Associates, Gs 37, Vs Commissioner Of Amar Jyoti Palace, Lomat Income Tax, Circle-1, Square, Wardha Road, Nagpur. Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Abapc6968N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhay Agrawal – Advocate Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Dated 30.3.2022 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Dated 30.06.2016 For A.Y.2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : Sanjay Kisan Chopde [A]

TDS was made by the deductor has also not been included in the sales 4 Sanjay Kisan Chopde [A] turnover of the assessee. It was explained by the assessee, that the said entry in no way pertained to his business. To substantiate, the assessee produced his audited books of accounts (audited u/s 44AB of the Income

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

income from business in immediately preceding year. The above fact is 43 ACIT, CIRCLE-7, NAGPUR VS M/s. Newquest Corporation Ltd. (Now known as Avantha Holdings Ltd) evident from the assessment order and computation of income for Asstt. Year 2009-10 placed on record. Gain in respect to same transaction on same parity of reasoning cannot be brought

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON vs. RENUKA OIL INDUSTRIES, KHAMGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

income as downloaded from ITD system, is not found to be factually correct in view of numerous apparent discrepancies in the 'ITD' version of ITR relied upon by the AO as discussed in detail at pars 6.6 above. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and overwhelming factors in favour of the genuineness of the claim, I am inclined

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR vs. NITIN SUBHASH SHARMA, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeals by the Revenue for the A

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

business income' and not income from other sources'. The appellant also stated therein that he had maintained books of account and would submit the same during the appeal proceedings. 7.3.2 On this issue, it is noted that the appellant has remained non-compliant and he has not submitted any response during these appeal proceedings. However, perusal of Form 26AS shows