SHEPHALI ANIL MALVIYA,NAGPUR vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals (Ms

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

100 taxmann.com 78 (Pune - Trib) and referred to Para Nos. 15 & 16 and submitted that the demand of late fee is not maintainable even if the returns of the TDS were filed after 01.06.2015, the order charging late filing fee was passed after 01.06.2015. He argued that the factual circumstances are similar to the present case, the assessee filed TDS

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

100% owner of the asset and liability of IBILT. As per the terms of the agreement the appellant was further required to discharge a debt of Rs. 7 crore owed by IBILT to bank. Also pursuance to the said agreement the 8 ACIT, CIRCLE-7, NAGPUR VS M/s. Newquest Corporation Ltd. (Now known as Avantha Holdings Ltd) appellant became

ASSISTANT COMISSIONER CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHRIGOPAL RAMESHKUMAR SALES PVT. LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS provisions as well as applicability of section 40A(3) so as to warrant any disallowance under those heads as per law. 18. That with respect to the addition of ` 16,42,713, it is the submission of the assessee that the said amount pertains to payments made by farmers/agriculturist to the labourers directly for unloading charges without any recourse

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

TDS No. Deducted 1 Amarchand Omprakash Kasat 4,200 - 2 Arihant Corporation 30,667 3,067 3 Ashok Bharatlal Agrawal 1,100 - 4 Ashok Bharatlal Agrawal (HUF) 11,025 1,103 5 Baba Accosiates 1,07,000 10,700 6 Bilala Refinaries 1,02,000 10,200 7 Chandadevi B Khandelwal 73,608 7,361 8 Chetan Ashok Agrawal

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

TDS was not deducted. Such disallowance was made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Effectively, the business loss to be carried 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

BANK OF INDIA, BUTIBORI,NAGPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, RANGE-1, NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

100% of TDS sought to be deducted from the interest etc., paid/credited to various parties/customers etc. 3.3 Aggrieved by the penalty orders, the assessee instituted separate appeals before Ld. NFAC u/s 246A(1)(c) of the Act. Without going into merits of case, in the absence of evidence justifying/explaining inordinate delay in filing these appeals, the Ld. NFAC placing reliance

BANK OF INDIA, DHARAMPETH,NAGPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, RANGE-1, NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

100% of TDS sought to be deducted from the interest etc., paid/credited to various parties/customers etc. 3.3 Aggrieved by the penalty orders, the assessee instituted separate appeals before Ld. NFAC u/s 246A(1)(c) of the Act. Without going into merits of case, in the absence of evidence justifying/explaining inordinate delay in filing these appeals, the Ld. NFAC placing reliance

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, RANGE-1, NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

100% of TDS sought to be deducted from the interest etc., paid/credited to various parties/customers etc. 3.3 Aggrieved by the penalty orders, the assessee instituted separate appeals before Ld. NFAC u/s 246A(1)(c) of the Act. Without going into merits of case, in the absence of evidence justifying/explaining inordinate delay in filing these appeals, the Ld. NFAC placing reliance

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, RANGE-1, NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

100% of TDS sought to be deducted from the interest etc., paid/credited to various parties/customers etc. 3.3 Aggrieved by the penalty orders, the assessee instituted separate appeals before Ld. NFAC u/s 246A(1)(c) of the Act. Without going into merits of case, in the absence of evidence justifying/explaining inordinate delay in filing these appeals, the Ld. NFAC placing reliance

BANK OF INDIA, DONGARGAON,NAGPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, RANGE-1, NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

100% of TDS sought to be deducted from the interest etc., paid/credited to various parties/customers etc. 3.3 Aggrieved by the penalty orders, the assessee instituted separate appeals before Ld. NFAC u/s 246A(1)(c) of the Act. Without going into merits of case, in the absence of evidence justifying/explaining inordinate delay in filing these appeals, the Ld. NFAC placing reliance

BANK OF INDIA, ITWARI ,NAGPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS) RANGE-1, NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

100% of TDS sought to be deducted from the interest etc., paid/credited to various parties/customers etc. 3.3 Aggrieved by the penalty orders, the assessee instituted separate appeals before Ld. NFAC u/s 246A(1)(c) of the Act. Without going into merits of case, in the absence of evidence justifying/explaining inordinate delay in filing these appeals, the Ld. NFAC placing reliance

M/S. RAI UDYOG LTD.,NAGPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), NAGPUR

In the result, these twin appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 311 & 312/Nag/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rai Udyog Limited 1, Rajat Sankul, Opp. Bus Stand, Ganesh Peth, Nagpur-440018 Pan: Aaccr6008G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Hq-1 / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds), Nagpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध/ Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 21/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By These Twin Appeals The Assessee Challenged Against The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044245542(1) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1044244849(1) Both Dt. 28/07/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The National Faceless Appellate Centre [‘Nfac’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2014-15 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

100% of TDS sought to be deducted from the payment made against the purchase of immovable property. 5.2 Aggrieved by the imposition the assessee in this case too instituted an appeal before Ld. NFAC u/s 246A(1)(c) of the Act on 18/02/2021 with a delay of 1014 days. During the appellate proceedings the assessee was granted as many

RAI UDYOG LTD.,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), NAGPUR

In the result, these twin appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 311 & 312/Nag/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rai Udyog Limited 1, Rajat Sankul, Opp. Bus Stand, Ganesh Peth, Nagpur-440018 Pan: Aaccr6008G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Income Tax Officer (Tds) Hq-1 / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds), Nagpur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध/ Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Abhay Marathe [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 21/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By These Twin Appeals The Assessee Challenged Against The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1044245542(1) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1044244849(1) Both Dt. 28/07/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The National Faceless Appellate Centre [‘Nfac’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2014-15 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

100% of TDS sought to be deducted from the payment made against the purchase of immovable property. 5.2 Aggrieved by the imposition the assessee in this case too instituted an appeal before Ld. NFAC u/s 246A(1)(c) of the Act on 18/02/2021 with a delay of 1014 days. During the appellate proceedings the assessee was granted as many

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

100. No penalty proceedings were initiated while completing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the learned Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amravati Range, (“the JCIT”), issued notice seeking explanation from the assessee. The Assessing Officer also issued a show cause notice on 23/01/2017. In response to the above notices, the assessee filed written submissions on 08/02/2017

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

100/- is received on account of services provided by the assessee. On the facts and circumstances of the case there is no regular activity of earning profit by providing services. The learned authorities failed to appreciate that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is common maintenance expenditure for the premises. The addition on such basis is highly unjustified. (4) That

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

TDS has been deducted on such interest expenses claimed; more so, the alleged sum had already been repaid on 4-10-18 prior to the search conducted on 11-7-19; the addition of Rs.7,59,397 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 29. The Assessing Officer has made following additions:– Opening bal. Interest credited Loan creditors

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

TDS has been deducted on such interest expenses claimed; more so, the alleged sum had already been repaid on 4-10-18 prior to the search conducted on 11-7-19; the addition of Rs.7,59,397 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 29. The Assessing Officer has made following additions:– Opening bal. Interest credited Loan creditors

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

TDS has been deducted on such interest expenses claimed; more so, the alleged sum had already been repaid on 4-10-18 prior to the search conducted on 11-7-19; the addition of Rs.7,59,397 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 29. The Assessing Officer has made following additions:– Opening bal. Interest credited Loan creditors

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

TDS has been deducted on such interest expenses claimed; more so, the alleged sum had already been repaid on 4-10-18 prior to the search conducted on 11-7-19; the addition of Rs.7,59,397 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 29. The Assessing Officer has made following additions:– Opening bal. Interest credited Loan creditors