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

190 as was earlier filed on 25/11/2014 under section 139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already

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

190 as was earlier filed on 25/11/2014 under section 139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already

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

190 as was earlier filed on 25/11/2014 under section 139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already

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

190 as was earlier filed on 25/11/2014 under section 139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already

M/S PYRAMID DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. JOINT CIT RANGE 1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

TDS under section 194I of the Act, and also disallowed the amount of ` 2,57,530 towards advertisement expenses 6 M/s. Pyramid Developers M/s. Pyramid Arcade Pvt. Ltd. for failure to deduct tax at source under section 194C of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority

KHALID NADEEM ALLARAKHA,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

TDS on payment made to the transporter. The Assessing Officer assessed the commission @ 4% to the tune of ` 1,53,976 and added to the total income of the assessee. The assessee also paid the transportation charges to the tune of ` 56,81,006 against the purchase to the tune of ` 2,30,14,686, without complying to the provisions

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

190, is the starting point. The same tallies with profit before tax as per statement of Profit & Loss Account. Current tax of ` 13,66,111, has not been considered as deduction. So, there is no question of disallowing the same. The authorities below have failed to appreciate the issue in correct perspective. Accordingly, ground no.3, is allowed by deleting