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

43. It was least expected from the 24 Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal ITA no.375/Nag./2024 Assessing Officer to at least verify the return of income of the lenders from their own database. Needless to say that in case of non–response, the Assessing Officer has all the powers to issue summons under section 133 of the Act and enforce attendance

SHRI MAHESH DEVDUTTA GUPTA,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3),, NAGPUR

In the result, the addition so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

D E R PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur, dated 09.03.2017 for the assessment year 2005–06, wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:– “(1) That the order of the learned Asstt. Commissioner of Income

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

D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 31/08/2020, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–1, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2015–16. 2. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised following grounds:– “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AKOLA, NAGPUR vs. RBSD AND FN DAS, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

43,96,254 2. D. Govind ` 9,99,700 3. D.S. Prakash ` 9,84,000 4. E.V. Mani ` 9,83,000 5. P. Suresh ` 9,85,000 6. P. Suryaprakash ` 9,94,000 7. S. Satyanarayana ` 9,91,000 8. V. Ramesh ` 9,81,000 ` 14,41,180 9. N. Appalaramulu ` 45,06,179 10. Pradeep Kumar Katakwar

MAHESHKUMAR HARGOVIND GOYAL,NAGPUR vs. WARD 1(2), NAGPUR

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

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

D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The instant appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 26/07/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2011–12. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. Whether

RAHUL UDYOG,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, AMRAVATI

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

D E R PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nagpur, dated 07.03.2017, wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:– “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals

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

D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. Captioned appeal by the Revenue is against the impugned order dated 26/03/2018, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2015–16. 2. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised following grounds:– “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR vs. M/S UNITED BUILDERS , BHANDARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

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

D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 30/12/2019, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2014–15. 2. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised following grounds:– “Whether in facts and circumstances of the case

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

43(3) and there was no disallowance of the expenditure in the order u/s.143(3) earlier. In my considered view, the amount paid to RTO is a compounding fee and therefore the deduction is allowable. After considering the facts of the case and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant, it is clear that the disallowance made

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

43(3) and there was no disallowance of the expenditure in the order u/s.143(3) earlier. In my considered view, the amount paid to RTO is a compounding fee and therefore the deduction is allowable. After considering the facts of the case and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant, it is clear that the disallowance made

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

43(3) and there was no disallowance of the expenditure in the order u/s.143(3) earlier. In my considered view, the amount paid to RTO is a compounding fee and therefore the deduction is allowable. After considering the facts of the case and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant, it is clear that the disallowance made

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

43(3) and there was no disallowance of the expenditure in the order u/s.143(3) earlier. In my considered view, the amount paid to RTO is a compounding fee and therefore the deduction is allowable. After considering the facts of the case and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant, it is clear that the disallowance made

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

43(3) and there was no disallowance of the expenditure in the order u/s.143(3) earlier. In my considered view, the amount paid to RTO is a compounding fee and therefore the deduction is allowable. After considering the facts of the case and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant, it is clear that the disallowance made

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

43(3) and there was no disallowance of the expenditure in the order u/s.143(3) earlier. In my considered view, the amount paid to RTO is a compounding fee and therefore the deduction is allowable. After considering the facts of the case and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant, it is clear that the disallowance made

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

D E R PER BENCH These captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the impugned orders of even date 18/01/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years

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

D E R PER BENCH These captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the impugned orders of even date 18/01/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years

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

D E R PER BENCH These captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the impugned orders of even date 18/01/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years

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

D E R PER BENCH These captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the impugned orders of even date 18/01/2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years