RAVINDRA MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE , AKOLA

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

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

36(1)(iii), section 37 and section 57(iii) of the income tax act, 1961. The landmark judgment on this issue, which explains the entire gamut of provisions is that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SA Builders Limited's case 288 ITR 1 (SC). 4.8 In the above-mentioned case, the issue was whether an assessee

SHRIRAM DADAJI MATTE,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

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

36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid out of its income whereas the second is deemed an income, by definition, since

SHRIRAM DADAJI MATTE,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

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

36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid out of its income whereas the second is deemed an income, by definition, since

I.T.O.(T.D.S.) WARD 2(3), CHANDRAPUR vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD UNIT AWARPUR CEMENT WORKS,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi

TDS is not to be deducted from the payment made to transporters who furnished PAN. The Assessing Officer has wrongly interpreted that this provision is applicable to tax deducted by assessee who are engaged in transport business. This in my considered opinion is an erroneous interpretation not sustainable in law. In my considered opinion learned CIT(Appeals) has correctly appreciated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE , AKOLA vs. AKOLA URBAN CO-OPRATIVE BANK LTD , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 36(1)(viia) of the Act, resulting in miscarriage of justice. 4. Any other ground which may be taken at the time of hearing with the permission of Hon'ble ITAT.” 3. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is a Scheduled Co-operative Bank engaged in the activities of banking within the purview of Banking Regulation Act. The assessee filed

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

M/S TAWARI TRADERS ,BULDHANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2, KHAMGAON

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act, while dealing with the issue, vide Para–7.0 to 7.4 / Page–11 to 13, held that interest amount attributable to the interest free advances shall be allowed to the assessee. The findings of the learned CIT(A) are as under:– “7.0 Ground No. 2: The appellant has challenged the addition made

HASANTE BURHANIAH FIDAYYIAH TRUST,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD-1, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS) while processing them under section 200A of the Act charged late filing fee under section 234E of the Act for different quarters aggregating to ` 1,34,576 for the assessment year 2013–14 and ` 36

RAVINDRA KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE AKOLA , AKOLA

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

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

section 36)\(1)(iii) of the Act. 10. The Assessing Officer disallowed a part of the interest considering it as interest on capital not borrowed for the purpose of business on proportionate basis. The assessee had debited ` 34,15,880, on account of interest on unsecured loans of ` 1,81,14,226. The Assessing Officer considered 24.39 per 4 Ravindra

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

section 143(3) of the Act and proceeded to dispose off the appeal filed by the assessee on merits of the case wherein the learned CIT(A) deleted all the additions, as tabulated above, vide his impugned order dated 18/12/2015 supra. Against this order, the Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the learned Departmental Representative, Shri Sandipkumar

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

36(1)(iii) of I.T. Act 1961 in respect to interest paid to M/s Abhilasha Shoppers Pvt. Ltd. 8. The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 9. The order passed

SHRI DEEPAK SITARAM LADDHAD,BULDHANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

Bench: S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.375/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Deepak Sitaram The Deputy Commissioner Of Laddhad Laddhad Hospital, Vs Income Tax, Akola Circle, Behind Shivaji College, Akola. Wankhede Layoiut, Buldhana – 443001. Pan: Aarpl 4180 F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri G.J.Ninawe – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nagpur Dated 17.07.2017 Emanating From The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 14.03.2013. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1] Learned C.I.T.(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance The Interest Amounting To Rs.2,80,926/- Out Of Disallowance The Interest Made By A.O. Amounting To Rs.3,69,635/-. 2] Learned C.I.T.(A) Erred In Not Properly Appreciate The Fact Of The Case & Various Submission Filed Before The A.O. & Before Her.

section 36(1)(iii) r.w.37(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) accepted assessee’s explanation only with respect to the loan amount given to Dr.Ajay Mahajan. Accordingly, the ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to ITA No.375/NAG/2017 for A.Y.2010-11 Shri Deepak Sitaram Ladhad [A] recalculate the disallowance which works

ASSISTANT COMISSIONER CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHRIGOPAL RAMESHKUMAR SALES PVT. LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS provisions as well as applicability of section 40A(3) so as to warrant any disallowance under those heads as per law. 18. That with respect to the addition of ` 16,42,713, it is the submission of the assessee that the said amount pertains to payments made by farmers/agriculturist to the labourers directly for unloading charges without any recourse

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

section 10(3) of the Act. Ground no.5, raised by the Revenue is thus dismissed by upholding the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A). 18. Ground no.6, raised by the Revenue relates to the addition of ` 68,02,624, made on account of unexplained unsecured loans. 19. The observations of the learned CIT(A) while deleting the addition

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