ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. M/S NANDLAL ENTERPRISES, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194C of the Act. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee made payments to M/s. Ramkrishna Transport Company, who in turn, disbursed the amount among the truck owners for the services rendered by truck owners to the assessee. However, there is no finding of fact

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. M/S NANDLAL ENTERPRISES, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194C of the Act. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee made payments to M/s. Ramkrishna Transport Company, who in turn, disbursed the amount among the truck owners for the services rendered by truck owners to the assessee. However, there is no finding of fact

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. AAKAR HOTELS, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

TDS of Rs. 3,30,000/- on account of purchase of property from M/s Aakar Hotels. Further the said deed was also duly registered on 29.03.2016 and stamp duty of Rs. 18,15,000/-along with registration fees of Rs 30,000/- was paid to the government on account of transfer of property. V. The property was taken on lease

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

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

42,757 ` 2,68,490 5. The issue involved in ground no.3, 4, 5 and 6, in the assessment year 2014–15, relates to the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit 3 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 under section 68 of the Act. The grounds no.3 to 6, are reproduced below

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

42,757 ` 2,68,490 5. The issue involved in ground no.3, 4, 5 and 6, in the assessment year 2014–15, relates to the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit 3 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 under section 68 of the Act. The grounds no.3 to 6, are reproduced below

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

42,757 ` 2,68,490 5. The issue involved in ground no.3, 4, 5 and 6, in the assessment year 2014–15, relates to the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit 3 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 under section 68 of the Act. The grounds no.3 to 6, are reproduced below

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

42,757 ` 2,68,490 5. The issue involved in ground no.3, 4, 5 and 6, in the assessment year 2014–15, relates to the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit 3 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 under section 68 of the Act. The grounds no.3 to 6, are reproduced below

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

42,757 ` 2,68,490 5. The issue involved in ground no.3, 4, 5 and 6, in the assessment year 2014–15, relates to the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit 3 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 under section 68 of the Act. The grounds no.3 to 6, are reproduced below

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

42,757 ` 2,68,490 5. The issue involved in ground no.3, 4, 5 and 6, in the assessment year 2014–15, relates to the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit 3 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 under section 68 of the Act. The grounds no.3 to 6, are reproduced below

ITO, WARD- 4 (1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI SWAPNIL ANIL AHIRKAR, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

42,49,485 on account of commission. Now it is to be seen what are the reasons taken by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for the deletion of the said addition. Therefore, it is necessary to advert the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on record. “7.0 I have carefully gone through the assessment order, the submissions

YOGESH NANDALAL CHANDE,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-1, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 139(1) of the Act thereby dismissing assessee’s appeal directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of TDS credit of ` 14,93,947, on the salary income offered by the assessee amounting to ` 31,73,253, which was duly reflected in Form no.26AS. The assessee being aggrieved, by the order so passed by the learned

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

42. – do – 2,50,000 21.08.2012 Cash 43. – do – 50,000 23.08.2012 Cash 44. – do – 3,50,000 23.09.2012 Cash 45. – do – 2,00,000 04.10.2012 Cash 46. – do – 110,000 11.10.2012 Cash 47. – do – 1,50,000 13.10.2012 Cash 48. – do – 1,00,000 22.11.2012 Cash 49. – do – 3,00,000 16.11.2012 Cash 50. – do – 30,000 17.11.2012 Cash

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

section 68 only sets up a presumption against the assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of account of the assessee. It cannot but be again said that the presumption is rebuttable. In refuting the presumption raised, the initial burden is on the assessee. This burden, which is placed on the assessee, shifts as soon as the assessee

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

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

42,51,412, liability on loans. The Assessing Officer while relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mzxopp Investment Ltd. and the CBDT’s Circular no.5/20174 dated 11/02/2014. 6. The assessee being aggrieved, filed appeal before the learned

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

42,51,412, liability on loans. The Assessing Officer while relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mzxopp Investment Ltd. and the CBDT’s Circular no.5/20174 dated 11/02/2014. 6. The assessee being aggrieved, filed appeal before the learned

AKSHAY GAJANAN SURYAWANSHI DESHMUKH,CHIKHLI vs. ITO WARD-2, KHAMGAON

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

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

42,06,636/-even though after considering the closing stock no such amount is claimed for determining income at the hands of assessee, resulting into unjustified addition. 3 Akshay Gajanan Suryawanshi Deshmukh ITA no.385/Nag./2024 10) Addition made by A.O. in respect to TCS amount at Rs.5,19,653/- is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 11) The learned A.O. erred