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

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) requesting specific details about the lenders and the loans. In response to notices under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee submitted list of lenders, their PAN, address, ledger confirmation of most of the debtors, interest payment details, details of TDS

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SINGH ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(1), NAGPUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.96/Nag/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward- 8(1), Nagpur. Hanshu Patel Building, Amravati Road, Wadi, Nagpur- 440023. Pan : Axbps9499K Appellant Respondent Assessee By None : Revenue By : Shri G. J. Ninawe Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2006-07 Arises Against The Cit(A)-2, Nagpur’S Order Dated 21.08.2019 Passed In Case No. Cit(A)-2/141/2013-14, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. The Very Factual Position Existed On All Previous Hearing As Well. He Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte.

133/- on account of his failure to deduct TDS on the alleged truck hire charges payments. 3. Mr. Ninawe vehemently contended that the assessee ought to have deducted TDS on the ground that hire charges paid to various brokers without deducting TDS. He further quotes section

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

133(6). The Assessing Officer then issued a show cause notice to the assessee on 03/10/2016, who was asked to explain as to why the expenses M/s. United Builders ITA no.56/Nag./2020 debited to Profit & Loss A/c on account of sub-letting the work shall not be disallowed as not a single party has submitted its confirmation. The Assessing Officer

SUBHASHI YADAORAO CHIMURKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), NAGPUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

TDS) [2022] 142 taxmann.com 25 (Madras) has settled the issue that an 4 ITA.No.168/NAG./2023 employee working in establishments constituted under a State Act is indeed entitled for sec.10(10AA) benefits as under : 5 ITA.No.168/NAG./2023 6 ITA.No.168/NAG./2023 7 ITA.No.168/NAG./2023 8 ITA.No.168/NAG./2023 9 ITA.No.168/NAG./2023 7. Honb’le high court

MOHAN BALIRAMJI THAKRE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

TDS) [2022] 142 taxmann.com 25 (Madras) has settled the issue that an employee working in establishments constituted under a State Act is indeed entitled for sec.10(10AA) benefits as under : 5 ITA.Nos.375/NAG./2022; ITA.Nos. 10, 118 & 389/NAG./2023 6 ITA.Nos.375/NAG./2022; ITA.Nos. 10, 118 & 389/NAG./2023 7 ITA.Nos.375/NAG./2022; ITA.Nos. 10, 118 & 389/NAG./2023 8 ITA.Nos.375/NAG

SHRI ASHOK MAHADEORAO GAWHANDE,BULDHANA vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

TDS) [2022] 142 taxmann.com 25 (Madras) has settled the issue that an employee working in establishments constituted under a State Act is indeed entitled for sec.10(10AA) benefits as under : 5 ITA.Nos.375/NAG./2022; ITA.Nos. 10, 118 & 389/NAG./2023 6 ITA.Nos.375/NAG./2022; ITA.Nos. 10, 118 & 389/NAG./2023 7 ITA.Nos.375/NAG./2022; ITA.Nos. 10, 118 & 389/NAG./2023 8 ITA.Nos.375/NAG

DILIP RAJESHWAR RAJKONDAWAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, NFAC, DELH

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

TDS) [2022] 142 taxmann.com 25 (Madras) has settled the issue that an employee working in establishments constituted under a State Act is indeed entitled for sec.10(10AA) benefits as under : 5 ITA.Nos.375/NAG./2022; ITA.Nos. 10, 118 & 389/NAG./2023 6 ITA.Nos.375/NAG./2022; ITA.Nos. 10, 118 & 389/NAG./2023 7 ITA.Nos.375/NAG./2022; ITA.Nos. 10, 118 & 389/NAG./2023 8 ITA.Nos.375/NAG

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

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") disclosing total income at ` 4,47,650. A gist of written submissions filed by the learned departmental representative are as under:– “The assessee has filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 u/s 139(1) of The Income

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

OSHIAN REALTORS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

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

133(6) to the said parties to verify the genuineness of the above expenses. However there was no response to the notices issued by the AO. Therefore the AO had carried out the verification through verification unit of the department also but there was no positive result. The appellant also failed to submit supporting justification 5 Oshian Realtors India

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

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 (2014) 44 Taxmann.com 242 DCIT V. Eversmile Construction Co.(P.) Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 657 (Mumbai – Trib.) 12. In the present case as the claim for deduction was enhanced by the assessee which was on account

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

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 (2014) 44 Taxmann.com 242 DCIT V. Eversmile Construction Co.(P.) Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 657 (Mumbai – Trib.) 12. In the present case as the claim for deduction was enhanced by the assessee which was on account

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

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 (2014) 44 Taxmann.com 242 DCIT V. Eversmile Construction Co.(P.) Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 657 (Mumbai – Trib.) 12. In the present case as the claim for deduction was enhanced by the assessee which was on account

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

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 (2014) 44 Taxmann.com 242 DCIT V. Eversmile Construction Co.(P.) Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 657 (Mumbai – Trib.) 12. In the present case as the claim for deduction was enhanced by the assessee which was on account

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

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 (2014) 44 Taxmann.com 242 DCIT V. Eversmile Construction Co.(P.) Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 657 (Mumbai – Trib.) 12. In the present case as the claim for deduction was enhanced by the assessee which was on account

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

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 (2014) 44 Taxmann.com 242 DCIT V. Eversmile Construction Co.(P.) Ltd. [2013] 33 taxmann.com 657 (Mumbai – Trib.) 12. In the present case as the claim for deduction was enhanced by the assessee which was on account

ZIM LABORATORIES LIMITED ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 153 A nor defined in the statute and therefore, deletion of addition on this account is not in consonance of law? 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,56,63,908/ made by the AO being excess commission paid to sister concerns

ZIM LABORATORIES LIMITED ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 153 A nor defined in the statute and therefore, deletion of addition on this account is not in consonance of law? 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,56,63,908/ made by the AO being excess commission paid to sister concerns

ZIM LABORATORIES LIMITED ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 153 A nor defined in the statute and therefore, deletion of addition on this account is not in consonance of law? 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,56,63,908/ made by the AO being excess commission paid to sister concerns