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

ITO WARD-1(1) NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. ASHWAMI SALES AND MARKETING PVT.LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

13,00,980/- claimed as expense towards Carriage Outward, treating such expense disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act 8. Assessee contended before the learned CIT that because of the provision of Section 194C(6), she was not liable to deduct TDS on payments to transporters who had submitted their PAN, and those details of PAN and addressees

GORAKSHAN SABHA, NAGPUR,WARDHA ROAD, NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MOF,GOI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92 & 91/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Gorakshan Sabha, The Income Tax Officer, Near Hitawada Press, V Ward Exemption, Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, S Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aaatg2927L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Common Intimation Of Outstanding Demand Order For A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Facts Of Both Appeals Are Similar, We Take Up Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 As

13-14 (A.Y. 2014-15) u/s 200A r.w.s. 234E, of the IT Act,1961 without appreciating the law and facts of the case.(ii)That the provi. for levy late fee u/s 200A(l)(c) r.w.s. 234E was introduced vide F.A. 2015 w.e.f. 01/06/2015, as such the order u/s 200A is illegal and without jurisdiction.(iii)That in absence

GORAKSHAN SABHA, NAGPUR,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MOF, GOI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92 & 91/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Gorakshan Sabha, The Income Tax Officer, Near Hitawada Press, V Ward Exemption, Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, S Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aaatg2927L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Common Intimation Of Outstanding Demand Order For A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Facts Of Both Appeals Are Similar, We Take Up Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 As

13-14 (A.Y. 2014-15) u/s 200A r.w.s. 234E, of the IT Act,1961 without appreciating the law and facts of the case.(ii)That the provi. for levy late fee u/s 200A(l)(c) r.w.s. 234E was introduced vide F.A. 2015 w.e.f. 01/06/2015, as such the order u/s 200A is illegal and without jurisdiction.(iii)That in absence

BANK OF INDIA ,PRASHEONI BRANCH vs. ACIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

1). However, against the intimation under section 154, the assessee filed appeal before the ld CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the levy of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act and has returned a finding that even in absence of amendment in section 200A, it was always open for the Revenue to make the levy

BANK OF INDIA,SIHORA BRANCH vs. ACIT,CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

1). However, against the intimation under section 154, the assessee filed appeal before the ld CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the levy of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act and has returned a finding that even in absence of amendment in section 200A, it was always open for the Revenue to make the levy

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

13. Section 68 of the Act has received considerable attention of the courts. It has been held that it is necessary for an assessee to prove prima facie the transaction which results in a cash credit in his books of account. Such proof would include proof of identity of the creditor, capacity of such creditor to advance the money

HASANTE BURHANIAH FIDAYYIAH TRUST,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD-1, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

C) In the appeal order at para 5.5 it was observed that A.O. is free to pass order levying fee u/s 234E of IT. Act 1961 provided limitation for doing so exist. D) A.O. on 25/02/2020 passed order giving effect to order of CIT(A)-2 u/s 250 and repeated levy as originally levied in order u/s 200A

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

TDS. We thus do not find reason to interfere with the first appellate order on the issue. The same is upheld. The issue is thus decided against the revenue. The above judicial pronouncement has also been followed by co- ordinate Bench of same (Pune) Tribunal in case of :- Jay Tuljabhavani Sah. Patpedhi Pragati V/s ITO (ITAT Pune) Relevant Para

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

In the result, assessee’s appeals (Ms

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

c) to Section 200A(1) of the Act w.e.f. 01.06.2015. There are plethora of cases which decided this issue that if TDS statements were filed prior to 01.06.2015 then there cannot be any levy of late fees U/S.234E of the Act. That however, TDS statements filed after 01.06.2015 would attract the late filing fees as per Section 234E

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; it had already been accepted in scrutiny assessment completed u/s143(3) dt.18-8-16; 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.3,99,600 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 6. The assessee

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; it had already been accepted in scrutiny assessment completed u/s143(3) dt.18-8-16; 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.3,99,600 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 6. The assessee

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; it had already been accepted in scrutiny assessment completed u/s143(3) dt.18-8-16; 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.3,99,600 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 6. The assessee

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; it had already been accepted in scrutiny assessment completed u/s143(3) dt.18-8-16; 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.3,99,600 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 6. The assessee

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; it had already been accepted in scrutiny assessment completed u/s143(3) dt.18-8-16; 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.3,99,600 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 6. The assessee

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; it had already been accepted in scrutiny assessment completed u/s143(3) dt.18-8-16; 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.3,99,600 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 6. The assessee

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

13, held that interest amount attributable to the interest free advances shall be allowed to the assessee. The findings of the learned CIT(A) are as under:– “7.0 Ground No. 2: The appellant has challenged the addition made by AO of Rs.9,20,513/-u/s.36(1)(iii) on account disallowance of interest paid by the appellant. The AO has observed

ADILOK VIDYALAYA BODUNDA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4), BHANDARA

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara

TDS, Ghaziabad [for short "AO" ] for the asesment year s [for short "AY" ] 201 3 - 1 4 to 201 6 - 1 7 . 2. T his seks to adjudicate t he isue of authorisation of levy of fes u/s 234E for default in furnishing statement u/s 20(3) in the absence of enabling provision. 3. Since the facts and isue involved