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

MUJIB SALMANBHAI PATHAN,,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.98/Nag/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 ......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Mujib Salmanbhai Pathan, House No.242, Ward No.2, Old Area, Wardha Road, Butibori, Nagpur-441108. Pan : Aefpp0269M. बनाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……""यथ" / Respondent Circle-3, Nagpur. Assessee By : Shri Veena Agrawal Revenue By : Smt. Agnes P. Thomas. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 12.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Stating That The Subject, Whether Proper Approval Was Taken Before Converting Limited Scrutiny Into Complete Scrutiny Being Administrative Measure Cannot Be Taken Up. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs 1,00,85,013/- Made By The Ao As Income Under The Head Business & Profession Rightly Declared As Income Under The Head Capital Gains.

section 263 was not sustainable, and that, on facts, the income was required to be taxed under the head ‘Capital gains’ and not as ‘Income from business’. [Para 14]” 11. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it does not indicate that the purchase of land was made with the intention to re-sell. The Hon’ble Supreme

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AKOLA, NAGPUR vs. RBSD AND FN DAS, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

263 and notice under section 143(2)) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 06/02/2023 and duly served. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was also issued on 08/03/2023. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed assessment on 30/03/2023 determining total assessed income at ` 8,54,08,000, after making following additions:– Sr. Income Assessed Addition made

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

263. In the result, the grounds taken by the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the assessee is also treated as allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed." 27 ACIT, CIRCLE-7, NAGPUR VS M/s. Newquest Corporation Ltd. (Now known as Avantha Holdings Ltd) 7.9 Thus it is seen that the expenses incurred

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

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 of Shri Sudhir Menon vide order dated 03/10/2018

SHRI MAHESH DEVDUTTA GUPTA,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3),, NAGPUR

In the result, the addition so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

2 to 4 and ground No. 7, the ld. AR submitted that these relates to two agreements of leave license and service charges, which were entered into by the assessee in respect of which, the assessee has offered the income under the head “income from house property”, whereas the Assessing Officer has brought the same under head “income from other

SNNEHSHILP CONSTRUCTIONS,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(5), NAGPUR

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

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

2) The Id. Authorities are not correct in making assessment u/s. 144 of I.T. Act and assessing the income @8% of total receipt when the assessee has appeared before the Authorities time to time and also submitted required details by the Authorities. Snnehshilp Constructions ITA no.413/Nag./2023 3) The Id. AO has not rejected the books of accounts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S. FUELCO COAL INDIA LTD., NAGPUR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

TDS deducted by the appellant from payment to M/s Bothra Shipping Services Pvt Ltd to the government account before the due date for filing the return of income. This addition is discussed in para 4(2) of the assessment order. In his written submission the AR has stated that subsequent to filing this appeal the appellant filed a rectification petition

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

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

263 of IT Act dated 23/02/2021held that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) on 17/10/2016 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the AO has not looked into genuineness of Consultancy Charges of Rs. 7.50 crores paid by the assessee. The PCIT, accordingly set aside the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) with a direction