VIKRAM AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

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

cash deposit i.e. the name and address of the person from whom such commission has been received and the nature of services provided by him for earning such commission. Further from the above chart reflecting payment to various parties through RTGS/NEFT, amount of more than crore has been transferred to Om Impex, and if the contention of the assessee that

INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD -4, AMRAVATI vs. SHRI MAHESH SHANKAR SORATE , DARYAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS on the commission paid to Shri Bagdi, and for which the commission/ interest amount was disallowed in terms of section 40(a)(ia). 7.5 The appellant has submitted that he had made the repayment by using online cash deposit

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

TDS was made from interest amount and paid to the government account as submitted by the assessee and stated by the AO in his remand report. The AO, in the assessment proceedings, has not proved that there was any cash payment involved at all in the transaction. Shree Agrawal Finance India P. Ltd. which is a company in which

AMARCHAND LAXMINARAYAN MANTRI,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

cash deposited the bank account. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and allow the ground no.2, raised by the assessee. 13. In the result, appeal for the A.Y. 2013–14, filed by the assessee is allowed. ITA no.290/Nag./2023 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2014–15 14. The assessee has raised following grounds

AMARCHAND LAXMINARAYAN MANTRI,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

cash deposited the bank account. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and allow the ground no.2, raised by the assessee. 13. In the result, appeal for the A.Y. 2013–14, filed by the assessee is allowed. ITA no.290/Nag./2023 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2014–15 14. The assessee has raised following grounds

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

deposited same to the credit of the ex-chequer. Duly complying with the law, the assessee had also filed TDS returns. The TDS returns were also submitted before the AO. We are hereby again attaching herewith all TDS returns for the relevant year annexure 3. f) Purpose for which loan was taken:- The Loans were taken for the purpose

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S. FUELCO COAL INDIA LTD., NAGPUR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

cash credit u/s 68 on account of share 1. capital and premium received from M/s Saphire 4,54,98,000 Marketing Pvt Ltd. Disallowance u/s 40a(ia) on account of payment made 2. to the Advocate Shri Rahul Bagade wilthout deducting 1,50,000 TDS Disallowance u/s 40a(ia) on account of failure to deposit

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

deposits with bank treated as unexplained (x) ` 40,63,928 Investment in purchase of land treated unexplained ` 4,42,000 (xi) Total:- ` 8,06,23,989 4 Shree Agarwal Finance India Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.176/Nag./2016 The assessee being aggrieved by the additions so made by the Assessing Officer carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 4. During

SHRI AMIT ARVIND BANDE,GADCHIROLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 CHANDRAPUR, CHANDRAPUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

TDS-194C and AIR- 001 to the tune of Rs.30,574, Rs.8,900/- and Rs.35,88,320/-, totaling to Rs.36,27,794/- respectively. Therefore, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer reopened the assessment u/sec.147 of the Act by taking necessary approval from the Competent Authority and issued statutory notices to the assessee u/sec.148

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

cash deposits of Rs. 1,16,70,000/- in Axis Bank and received interest income of Rs. 15,81,842/- from banks on which TDS

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

cash deposits of Rs. 1,16,70,000/- in Axis Bank and received interest income of Rs. 15,81,842/- from banks on which TDS

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

cash deposits of Rs. 1,16,70,000/- in Axis Bank and received interest income of Rs. 15,81,842/- from banks on which TDS

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

cash deposits of Rs.\n1,16,70,000/- in Axis Bank and received interest income of Rs. 15,81,842/-\nfrom banks on which TDS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR vs. M/S UNITED BUILDERS , BHANDARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

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

TDS amount. These sub contractors have not maintained any books of account or supporting documents. This is a convenient ploy used by them to show bogus sub-contracts payments. 3.6 The fact that the sub-contractors withdrawn in cash whatever money deposited

M/S TAWARI TRADERS ,BULDHANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2, KHAMGAON

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

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

deposit, but are charges imposed by the consignment agent, which is nothing but a trading liability. As stated earlier, the real nature of said charges is not interest, but compensation for goods lying with consignment agent and money blocked in stock. 8.1 I have carefully perused the submission of the appellant. The AR of the appellant has tried to establish

CHANDRAKUMAR MADHUSUDANJI JAJODIA,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

cash credit. Loan obtained has been utilized for the purpose of business. Interest paid to very same party during subsequent assessment year has been allowed in the regular assessment framed. Addition made by A.O. by disallowing interest paid is unjustified.” 10 Chandrakumar Madhusudanji Jajodia ITA no.399/Nag./2023 10. Per–contra, the learned Departmental Representative (“the learned D.R.”) strongly relying upon

MAHESHKUMAR HARGOVIND GOYAL,NAGPUR vs. WARD 1(2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

cash of ` 40 lakh and ` 61 lakh on 26/10/2010 and 27/10/2010 respectively. Thereafter, on 04/07/2011, the said Bank Account available with Nagpur Nagarik Sahakari Bank was closed on 04/07/2011. The assessee also received interest of ` 2,19,894, on such fixed deposit, however, the components of fixed deposit and interest receipt thereof were not reflected in the return of income

SHAILESH CHAMPAKLAL VAKHARIA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (CENTRAL) CIRCLE - 1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

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

TDS of Rs. 20,000/- as mentioned in the agreement to sale was never deposited by the buyer and is not reflecting in the 26AS of the assessee. (Annexure-F). Hence, the DAS has no legal sanctity. It is also submitted that the presumption under Sec 292C or 132(4A) in the instant case is not against the assessee