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

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

TDS deducted on 3. 1,86,63,861 payment made to M/s Bothra Shipping Services Pvt Ltd. Disallowance of 15% of finance cost claimed in the P&L 4. account on account of loans and advances gives to 15,86,284 related parties. The assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order so passed by the Assessing Officer, carried

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

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

115 taxmann.com 165 (Bombay) ACIT V Splendor Landbase Limited ( ITA No. 2461/Del/2016) CIT V. B G Shirke Construction Technology ( P) Ltd. (2017) 246 Taxman 300 ( Bombay) ACIT V. V N Deva Doss (2013) 32 Taxmann.com 133 Naresh T Wadhwani V DCIT (2014) 68 SOT 235 ( Pune-Trib) ITO V. Gajraj Constructions (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 18 Malpani Estates V ACIT

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

115 taxmann.com 165 (Bombay) ACIT V Splendor Landbase Limited ( ITA No. 2461/Del/2016) CIT V. B G Shirke Construction Technology ( P) Ltd. (2017) 246 Taxman 300 ( Bombay) ACIT V. V N Deva Doss (2013) 32 Taxmann.com 133 Naresh T Wadhwani V DCIT (2014) 68 SOT 235 ( Pune-Trib) ITO V. Gajraj Constructions (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 18 Malpani Estates V ACIT

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

115 taxmann.com 165 (Bombay) ACIT V Splendor Landbase Limited ( ITA No. 2461/Del/2016) CIT V. B G Shirke Construction Technology ( P) Ltd. (2017) 246 Taxman 300 ( Bombay) ACIT V. V N Deva Doss (2013) 32 Taxmann.com 133 Naresh T Wadhwani V DCIT (2014) 68 SOT 235 ( Pune-Trib) ITO V. Gajraj Constructions (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 18 Malpani Estates V ACIT

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

115 taxmann.com 165 (Bombay) ACIT V Splendor Landbase Limited ( ITA No. 2461/Del/2016) CIT V. B G Shirke Construction Technology ( P) Ltd. (2017) 246 Taxman 300 ( Bombay) ACIT V. V N Deva Doss (2013) 32 Taxmann.com 133 Naresh T Wadhwani V DCIT (2014) 68 SOT 235 ( Pune-Trib) ITO V. Gajraj Constructions (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 18 Malpani Estates V ACIT

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

115 taxmann.com 165 (Bombay) ACIT V Splendor Landbase Limited ( ITA No. 2461/Del/2016) CIT V. B G Shirke Construction Technology ( P) Ltd. (2017) 246 Taxman 300 ( Bombay) ACIT V. V N Deva Doss (2013) 32 Taxmann.com 133 Naresh T Wadhwani V DCIT (2014) 68 SOT 235 ( Pune-Trib) ITO V. Gajraj Constructions (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 18 Malpani Estates V ACIT

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

115 taxmann.com 165 (Bombay) ACIT V Splendor Landbase Limited ( ITA No. 2461/Del/2016) CIT V. B G Shirke Construction Technology ( P) Ltd. (2017) 246 Taxman 300 ( Bombay) ACIT V. V N Deva Doss (2013) 32 Taxmann.com 133 Naresh T Wadhwani V DCIT (2014) 68 SOT 235 ( Pune-Trib) ITO V. Gajraj Constructions (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 18 Malpani Estates V ACIT

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

115 ITR 659 (Del) 7. CIT vsModi Olivetti Ltd. (2013) 94 DTR 398 (All.) 8. Empire Jute Co.Ltd. vs CIT 124 ITR 001 (SC) 9. FineJewellery (India) Ltd. Vs ACIT (2012)19 ITR (Trib) 746 (Mumb) Thus, the ld. AR supported the order of the ld,CIT(A) and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the additions

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

TDS on payment to the appellant u/s 194C of the Act. The AO has not brought out that such payers were bogus or did not exist or that such receipts were not genuine. Thus, the sources of such receipts can be taken to be from contractual receipts. It is also noted that the appellant had not filed any returns

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

TDS on payment to the appellant u/s 194C of the Act. The AO has not brought out that such payers were bogus or did not exist or that such receipts were not genuine. Thus, the sources of such receipts can be taken to be from contractual receipts. It is also noted that the appellant had not filed any returns

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

TDS on payment to the appellant u/s 194C of the Act. The AO has not brought out that such payers were bogus or did not exist or that such receipts were not genuine. Thus, the sources of such receipts can be taken to be from contractual receipts. It is also noted that the appellant had not filed any returns