LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

147 of the Act. This is for the reason that, by issuing notice under section 263, the issues which were not subject matter of re-assessment proceedings, were sought to be revised and hence, the limitation period would run from intimation order passed under section 143(1) of the Act. The learned Counsel, in support of these arguments, placed reliance

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

147 read with section 148, on basis of report from Investigation wing of department. Therefore, where assessing Officer had been supplied with information by Investigation wing and he applied his mind to such information, there was no infirmity or illegality in issuance of notice under section 148. 6.2.4 In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-7 vs. Paramount

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

147 read with section 148, on basis of report from Investigation wing of department. Therefore, where assessing Officer had been supplied with information by Investigation wing and he applied his mind to such information, there was no infirmity or illegality in issuance of notice under section 148. 6.2.4 In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-7 vs. Paramount

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

147 read with section 148, on basis of report from Investigation wing of department. Therefore, where assessing Officer had been supplied with information by Investigation wing and he applied his mind to such information, there was no infirmity or illegality in issuance of notice under section 148. 6.2.4 In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-7 vs. Paramount

VIJAY VINOD DURAGKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 148 of the Act, on the basis of information allegedly received by him from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), New Delhi. AO has not applied his mind so as to come to an independent conclusion that he has reason to believe that income has escaped during the year. 1.4 Fishing enquiry-Information from intelligence wing: Giriraj Enterprises

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

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

147 of the Act on 25/12/2018. Facts of the case: Assessee filed return of income under section 139(1) of I T Act on 17/10/2016 declaring income of Rs.4,60,44,360/–. Case was selected for scrutiny and various notices were issued which were duly replied by the assessee. Assessment order under section 143(3) was passed on 25/12/2018 wherein

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. R.B.S.D. AND F.N. DAS (EXPORT FIRM), VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

147 of the Act on 29/03/2023, determining total assessed income at ` 6,28,80,335, by making addition of ` 1,25,89,787, under section 69C r/w section 115BBE of the Act treating it as bogus expenses on account of payment to labour contractors. 5. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition with following observations:– “4. Discussion

INDOWORTH INDIA LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), CIRCLE 51(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

147 of the Act on 12/6/2019 accepting the return filed by the NRI Smt. Davuluri Sai Swapna. Since the non-resident has discharged her obligation with respect to payment of capital gains tax, the assessee cannot be taxed once again for non-deduction of TDS U/s. 195 of the Act. It is also observed that the seller Smt. Davuluri

M/S INDOWORTH INDIA LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), CIRCLE 51(1) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

147 of the Act on 12/6/2019 accepting the return filed by the NRI Smt. Davuluri Sai Swapna. Since the non-resident has discharged her obligation with respect to payment of capital gains tax, the assessee cannot be taxed once again for non-deduction of TDS U/s. 195 of the Act. It is also observed that the seller Smt. Davuluri

DCIT-CC-1(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. R.B.S.D. AND F.N. DAS(EXPORT FIRM), VIZIANAGRAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

147 read with section 143(3) of I T Act on 28.03.2023 The argument of the appellant carries weight and I am in agreement with the same. It is undisputed that the appellant has incurred expenses of Rs. 15,89,204/- for repairs and the building which are quite old. From the details of expenses furnished by the appellant

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

TDS, Ward-51(1), Nagpur. The said intimation is scanned and reproduced here as under : 2.3 Thus, it is seen that assessee has filed an appeal against the recovery of outstanding demand. The list of orders against ITA Nos.92 & 91/NAG/2023 (02 appeals) Gorakshan Sabha [A] which an appeal can be filed before the ld.CIT(A) mentioned in 246A is reproduced

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

TDS, Ward-51(1), Nagpur. The said intimation is scanned and reproduced here as under : 2.3 Thus, it is seen that assessee has filed an appeal against the recovery of outstanding demand. The list of orders against ITA Nos.92 & 91/NAG/2023 (02 appeals) Gorakshan Sabha [A] which an appeal can be filed before the ld.CIT(A) mentioned in 246A is reproduced

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. R.B.S.D. AND F.N. DAS (EXPORT FIRM), VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

147 of the Act by making addition of\n1,04,27,361, on account of disallowance towards payments to 6 different\nlabour contractors under section 69C of the Act.\n5.\nOn appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition with following\nobservations:-\n\"4. Discussion and Decision:-\nGround no.3, is regarding addition of ₹ 1,04,27,361, u/s 69C being

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

147 of the Act after recording the reasons for re-opening of assessment. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer, obtaining the approval of the PCIT-3, Nagpur, notice dated 29/03/2018, under section 148 Maheshkumar Hargovind Goyal ITA no.322/Nag./2023 of the Act was issued which was served upon the assessee on 31/03/2018, and sought explanation from the assessee

PREMJEET SINGH,DABHA NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

147.” 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an employee with Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and his salary for the year under 2 Premjeet Singh consideration was ` 30,31,050, including arrears of salary and return of income was filed on time. Subsequently, the assessee received notice under section 143(2) of the Act on account

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

TDS is deducted. It is seen that the assessee has not\nfiled his return of income for AY 2015-16. The above transactions, total to\namount Rs.1,32,51,842/- remain unexplained and there is escapement of\nincome in absence of return of income filed. Thus income from above\ntransaction has not been offered

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

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

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