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

TDS No. Deducted 1 Amarchand Omprakash Kasat 4,200 - 2 Arihant Corporation 30,667 3,067 3 Ashok Bharatlal Agrawal 1,100 - 4 Ashok Bharatlal Agrawal (HUF) 11,025 1,103 5 Baba Accosiates 1,07,000 10,700 6 Bilala Refinaries 1,02,000 10,200 7 Chandadevi B Khandelwal 73,608 7,361 8 Chetan Ashok Agrawal

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

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

1) of section 201, then, for the purpose of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income by the resident payee referred to in the said proviso. 8.3 From the plain reading of provision of section

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

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

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

v. ACIT (2021) 129 taxmann.com 275 (Chen- Trib) wherein speaking through one of us Judicial Member, held as under: “9. Coming to invocation of sec68, the AO has simultaneously invoked sec68 in addition to sec41(1), to bring into tax, said credit for the impugned AYs, but fact remains is that all these credits were brought forward from earlier

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

v. ACIT (2021) 129 taxmann.com 275 (Chen- Trib) wherein speaking through one of us Judicial Member, held as under: “9. Coming to invocation of sec68, the AO has simultaneously invoked sec68 in addition to sec41(1), to bring into tax, said credit for the impugned AYs, but fact remains is that all these credits were brought forward from earlier

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

v. ACIT (2021) 129 taxmann.com 275 (Chen- Trib) wherein speaking through one of us Judicial Member, held as under: “9. Coming to invocation of sec68, the AO has simultaneously invoked sec68 in addition to sec41(1), to bring into tax, said credit for the impugned AYs, but fact remains is that all these credits were brought forward from earlier

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

v. ACIT (2021) 129 taxmann.com 275 (Chen- Trib) wherein speaking through one of us Judicial Member, held as under: “9. Coming to invocation of sec68, the AO has simultaneously invoked sec68 in addition to sec41(1), to bring into tax, said credit for the impugned AYs, but fact remains is that all these credits were brought forward from earlier

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

v. ACIT (2021) 129 taxmann.com 275 (Chen- Trib) wherein speaking through one of us Judicial Member, held as under: “9. Coming to invocation of sec68, the AO has simultaneously invoked sec68 in addition to sec41(1), to bring into tax, said credit for the impugned AYs, but fact remains is that all these credits were brought forward from earlier

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

v. ACIT (2021) 129 taxmann.com 275 (Chen- Trib) wherein speaking through one of us Judicial Member, held as under: “9. Coming to invocation of sec68, the AO has simultaneously invoked sec68 in addition to sec41(1), to bring into tax, said credit for the impugned AYs, but fact remains is that all these credits were brought forward from earlier

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

TDS has been deducted on the same. 2.5 The fact that the assessee has repaid the money in itself draws the proposition that the addition under section 68 is unwarranted. Further, the Income-tax act mandates taxing of 'income'. Since, the assessee has received and repaid the loan amount within the same year. It can't be assumed

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

V. DURGA RAO, J.M. The appeal by the assessee is emanating from the impugned order dated 31/12/2021, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2014–15. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. The additions made are illegal, invalid

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

v) Interest paid disallowed (vi) ` 7,86,217 Adhoc disallowances out of (vii) following expenses Remuneration Rs. 27,15,985 Administrative expenses Rs. 20,02,195 Rs.47,18,180 Disallowance at 20% ` 9,43,636 ` 6,46,05,741 Loan from Shree Agarwal Coal India P.Ltd. treated (After Rectifi- (viii) as dividend u/s 2(22)(e) cation

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

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. 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

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