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

2. The case was called twice. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee. No adjournment letter was filed on record. WE heard ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue. 2.1 In this case, the ld.CIT(A) in the order dated 31.01.2023 has mentioned as under : ITA Nos.92 & 91/NAG/2023 (02 appeals) Gorakshan Sabha [A] “The appeal was instituted on 05.12.2019 against

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

2,81,33,000/- is not required to be reduced. Issue: Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS 3.4 The assessee submits that, it had deducted TDS at the rate of one percent amounting to Rs. 12,52,000/- on sale consideration of Rs. 12,52,00,000/-. The assessee has duly paid

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

2,81,33,000/- is not required to be reduced. Issue: Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS 3.4 The assessee submits that, it had deducted TDS at the rate of one percent amounting to Rs. 12,52,000/- on sale consideration of Rs. 12,52,00,000/-. The assessee has duly paid

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

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

150/- was segregated by the assessee on account of expenses incurred for brand building. The nature of these expenditure as was seen from the details was almost like advertisement expenditures. The other expenditures have been treated by the Assessing Officer on advertisement as no disallowance has been made in this regard. It has not been brought on record

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; 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.7,59,397 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 29. The Assessing Officer has made following additions:– Opening bal. Interest credited Loan creditors

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; 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.7,59,397 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 29. The Assessing Officer has made following additions:– Opening bal. Interest credited Loan creditors

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; 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.7,59,397 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 29. The Assessing Officer has made following additions:– Opening bal. Interest credited Loan creditors

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; 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.7,59,397 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 29. The Assessing Officer has made following additions:– Opening bal. Interest credited Loan creditors

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; 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.7,59,397 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 29. The Assessing Officer has made following additions:– Opening bal. Interest credited Loan creditors

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; 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.7,59,397 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 29. The Assessing Officer has made following additions:– Opening bal. Interest credited Loan creditors

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSESSIG OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.20/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bajaj Steel Industries The Assessing Officer, Limited, Vs National E-Assessment 539/540, Imambada Road, Centre, Delhi. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaacb 5340 H Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajesh V. Loya – Ca Revenue By Shri Kailash Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac], Delhi Dated 22.12.2022 For A.Y.2018-19 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 24.04.2021. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : Bajaj Steel Industries Limited [A]

150/- being 30% of Rent expense of Rs.26,60,500/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding that the TDS has not been deducted on the same. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the TDS has been duly deducted and paid, the details and supporting evidences have been furnished and therefore the action

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON vs. RENUKA OIL INDUSTRIES, KHAMGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

2) and 142(1) of the Act issued and served on the assessee on 08/09/2014 in response to which the assessee furnished written submissions which were considered by the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer completed assessment determining total income of ` 47,99,885, as against returned income of ` 11,28,833, by making several additions viz. (i) additions under

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

2. We have heard both the parties at length and perused the case file. The assessee had filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) against the order under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 06.08.2015. Thus, the time limit to file the appeal was 30 days Page 3 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos.150

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

2. We have heard both the parties at length and perused the case file. The assessee had filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) against the order under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 06.08.2015. Thus, the time limit to file the appeal was 30 days Page 3 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos.150

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

2. We have heard both the parties at length and perused the case file. The assessee had filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) against the order under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 06.08.2015. Thus, the time limit to file the appeal was 30 days Page 3 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos.150

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

2. We have heard both the parties at length and perused the case file. The assessee had filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) against the order under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 06.08.2015. Thus, the time limit to file the appeal was 30 days Page 3 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos.150

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

2. We have heard both the parties at length and perused the case file. The assessee had filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) against the order under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 06.08.2015. Thus, the time limit to file the appeal was 30 days Page 3 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos.150

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

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

2. We have heard both the parties at length and perused the case file. The assessee had filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) against the order under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 06.08.2015. Thus, the time limit to file the appeal was 30 days Page 3 of 10 Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos.150