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

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

iii) Soma Rani Ghosh v/s DCIT, 74 taxmann.com 90, (Trib.) (Kol.) iv) ACIT (TDS) v/s ACC Ltd., ITA no.651–652/Chd./2015, dated 29.10.2015 (Trib.) (Chd.). 3. Insofar as assessee’s cross objections are concerned, the learned Counsel for assessee submitted that since the issue involved in these cross objections is covered in favour of the assessee on merits, hence

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

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

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

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 os wrong as per amendments in provisions. 6. The disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) as per Para–4(3) at Rs. 15,86,284-/– for interest is unjustified, unwarranted and in any case excessive. 7. Any other grounds prayed at the time of hearing.” 3. There is a delay of 54 days in filing the present appeal

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

36,400, for the assessment year 2014–15. The assessee being aggrieved, filed appeals for both the assessment years i.e., 2013–14 and 2014–15 before the first appellate authority. The assessee being aggrieved filed appeals before the learned CIT(A). 8. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer by observing as under

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

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

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

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

iii) ` 20,15,681 treated as income from other sources Unsecured loan as under treated unexplained ` 68,02,624 (iv) Dharampal Agarwal HUF Rs. 59,12,624 Agarwal Enterprises Rs. 8,90,000 Sundry Creditors treated as unexplained ` 2,10,060 (v) Interest paid disallowed (vi) ` 7,86,217 Adhoc disallowances out of (vii) following expenses Remuneration

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

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

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

TDS, details of Bank Accounts and details of various other expenses, etc. The appellant through his AR explained the case from time to time. From the documents submitted and 4 The Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co–operative Society Ltd. A.Y. 2012–13 explanations provided by the appellant, the AO notices that the appellant had earned interest income from Fixed Deposits with

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. M/S DEBASHU SERVICES PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.369/Nag/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010–11 Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.259 To 262/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006–07 To 2008–09 & 2012–13 M/S. Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.227 To 230/Nag/2017

36,51,984 2010–11 78,199,282 11,692,870 1,16,92,870 The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 25.03.2014. 2012–13 86,593,793 15,221,872 1,52,21,872 98,06,731 54,15,141 ITA Nos.227 to 230/NAG/2017 5. Deviating from the grounds of appeal, the assessee filed

M/S DEBASHU SERVICES PVT.LTD ,NAGPUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.369/Nag/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010–11 Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.259 To 262/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006–07 To 2008–09 & 2012–13 M/S. Debashu Services Pvt. Ltd., 18, Saptak Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur–440010. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaacd6682J बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle–1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.227 To 230/Nag/2017

36,51,984 2010–11 78,199,282 11,692,870 1,16,92,870 The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 25.03.2014. 2012–13 86,593,793 15,221,872 1,52,21,872 98,06,731 54,15,141 ITA Nos.227 to 230/NAG/2017 5. Deviating from the grounds of appeal, the assessee filed