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

Section 40(a) is applicable irrespective of the method of accounting followed by an assessee. Therefore, by using the term 'payable' legislature included the entire accrued liability. If assessee was following mercantile system of accounting, then the moment amount was credited to the account of payee on accrual of liability, TDS

GOPAL DENESHCHANDRA TULSHAN ,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AKOLA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

TDS has not been deducted and hence the Assessing Officer has disallowed the pertaining expenses i.e., interest of ` 2,03,227, under section 40

VIVEKANAND NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PULGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, WARDHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

TDS under section 194A of the Act. Hence, the learned CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed ` 5,84,367 (30% of ` 19,47,890) under section 40

VIVEKANAND NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PULGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, WARDHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

TDS under section 194A of the Act. Hence, the learned CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed ` 5,84,367 (30% of ` 19,47,890) under section 40

VIVEKANAND NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PULGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, WARDHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

TDS under section 194A of the Act. Hence, the learned CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed ` 5,84,367 (30% of ` 19,47,890) under section 40

RAGHAV AGRITECH,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

TDS on payment of ` 2,06,50,000, to contractor for building construction has not been deducted and hence 30% of sum paid is disallowable under section 40

AMARCHAND LAXMINARAYAN MANTRI,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

TDS is not deducted from three parties. The Assessing Officer made addition under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the ground

AMARCHAND LAXMINARAYAN MANTRI,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

TDS is not deducted from three parties. The Assessing Officer made addition under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the ground

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 on professional fee paid to Advocate Shri Rahul Bhangade. The AR has referred to the second proviso to section 40

AHSAAN QURESHI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

40(a)i and in Section 201(1) of Income Tax Act 1961, by Finance Act 2012 is not retrospective and 2 Ahsaan Qureshi ITA no.323/Nag./2023 consequently Commission paid to Shri Ashfaque Khan Rs.100000/= without deducting TDS

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

TDS was not deducted. Such disallowance was made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Effectively, the business loss

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. GUPTA ENERGY PVT. LTD, NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

TDS and claimed as expenditure under proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The AO further observed that

M/S INDOWORTH INDIA LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), CIRCLE 51(1) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

TDS. As per the IT return and computation from F.Y. 2014-15 to F.Y. 2018-19 disallowed the interest as contingent expenditure of ` 55,89,527, but due to some clerical mistakes, the assessee had not disallowed the interest provision for the F.Y. 2012-13 and F.Y. 2013-14. The assessee disallowed the interest

INDOWORTH INDIA LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), CIRCLE 51(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

TDS. As per the IT return and computation from F.Y. 2014-15 to F.Y. 2018-19 disallowed the interest as contingent expenditure of ` 55,89,527, but due to some clerical mistakes, the assessee had not disallowed the interest provision for the F.Y. 2012-13 and F.Y. 2013-14. The assessee disallowed the interest

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee being aggrieved carried the matter before the first appellate authority. Snnehshilp Constructions ITA no.413/Nag./2023 5. During the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee claimed TDS

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSESSIG OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.20/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bajaj Steel Industries The Assessing Officer, Limited, Vs National E-Assessment 539/540, Imambada Road, Centre, Delhi. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaacb 5340 H Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajesh V. Loya – Ca Revenue By Shri Kailash Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/08/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac], Delhi Dated 22.12.2022 For A.Y.2018-19 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Dated 24.04.2021. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : Bajaj Steel Industries Limited [A]

40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding that the TDS has not been deducted on the same. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of both the authorities is highly unjustified. 10. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in sustaining the action of AO in making addition of Rs.51

INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD -4, AMRAVATI vs. SHRI MAHESH SHANKAR SORATE , DARYAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS on the commission paid to Shri Bagdi, and for which the commission/ interest amount was disallowed in terms of section 40

INCOME TAX OFFICERS WARD -1 , AKOLA vs. M/S BALKRISHANA TRADERS , AKOLA

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, it is noted that the assessee therein A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2010-11 also an AOP had received contracts which in turn was executed by the two members of the AOP. A contention was raised that the said assessee AOP was established for obtaining work and receiving payments against the work done

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, AKOLA vs. M/S BALKRISHANA TRADERS , NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, it is noted that the assessee therein A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2010-11 also an AOP had received contracts which in turn was executed by the two members of the AOP. A contention was raised that the said assessee AOP was established for obtaining work and receiving payments against the work done