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

TDS of Rs.12,52,000 has been duly deposited with government and hence, disallowance under section 40a(ia) is not warranted. 8 Latitude Infraventures ITA no.349 & 350/Nag./2024 A.Y. 2016–17 & 2017–18 3.5 Therefore, the issues sought to be revised by the learned CIT does not result into any prejudice to the Revenue. Therefore, the twin condition of order

SHRI DEEPAK SURESH GADGE,,NAGPUR vs. JOINT. CIT, CIR.- I, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Deepak Suresh Gadge, The Joint Commissioner Of Pranav Apartments, Iind Lane, Income Tax- Circle-I, Behind The Hitvada, Dhantoli, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagpur Vs. Bhavan, Fifth Floor, Mecl Building, Seminary Hills, Pan : Abzpg6643H Nagpur- 440006

149 ITD 363 Agra and the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ansel Landmark Township Pvt. Ltd. 377 ITR 635 (Del) the Ld. counsel submitted that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia), introduced by the Finance Act 2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2013, read with s. 201, provides that despite failure

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

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCEL-51(1), NAGPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 002/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bank Of India Nagpur Zonal Office, 3Rd Floor, Csd Dept., Kingsway, Nagpur-440001 Pan: Aaacb0472C . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

TDS were occurred & identified by the respondent Revenue. 11. The amendment brought in by FA-2014 came into force on 01/10/2014 without prescribing for retrospective operation unlike FA-2012. This shows that the financial year which is already ended before the amended provision came into effect the time limit for passing the order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) shall

CHANDRAKUMAR MADHUSUDANJI JAJODIA,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 143(2) are mandatory. Without issue of notice u/s 143(2) no valid assessment is framed. Reliance on: i) (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) ACIT & Anr. Vs. Hotel Blue Moon (P- 103 – 112) (105) ii) (2019) 108 taxmann.com 183 (SC) CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal (P- 113 – 118) (114) iii) ITAT order in ITA No.1744/Mum/2016 in the case