HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

56 of Income Tax Act, 1960 by wrongly applying ratio laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Totagars Co. Op. sale Society Ltd. vs. ITO as the facts of the appellant's case distinguished from Totagars case. 4. That the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in considering the source of fund for Fixed Deposit as surplus funds available

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

56 of Income Tax Act, 1960 by wrongly applying ratio laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Totagars Co. Op. sale Society Ltd. vs. ITO as the facts of the appellant's case distinguished from Totagars case. 4. That the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in considering the source of fund for Fixed Deposit as surplus funds available

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

56 of Income Tax Act, 1960 by wrongly applying ratio laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Totagars Co. Op. sale Society Ltd. vs. ITO as the facts of the appellant's case distinguished from Totagars case. 4. That the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in considering the source of fund for Fixed Deposit as surplus funds available

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

In the result, appeal for the A

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

TDS. We thus do not find reason to interfere with the first appellate order on the issue. The same is upheld. The issue is thus decided against the revenue. The above judicial pronouncement has also been followed by co- ordinate Bench of same (Pune) Tribunal in case of :- Jay Tuljabhavani Sah. Patpedhi Pragati V/s ITO (ITAT Pune) Relevant Para

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

TDS and therefore, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were invoked by the Assessing Officer apart from other reasons. The CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee holding that the addition is uncalled for. However, it is case of Revenue that these payments attract the provisions

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

TDS and therefore, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were invoked by the Assessing Officer apart from other reasons. The CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee holding that the addition is uncalled for. However, it is case of Revenue that these payments attract the provisions

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

TDS and therefore, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were invoked by the Assessing Officer apart from other reasons. The CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee holding that the addition is uncalled for. However, it is case of Revenue that these payments attract the provisions

KHALID NADEEM ALLARAKHA,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

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

section 43A(3). Therefore, the said payment was declared and added to the income of the assessee. There was a difference in turnover and regarding non–deduction of TDS on payment made to the transporter. The Assessing Officer assessed the commission @ 4% to the tune of ` 1,53,976 and added to the total income of the assessee. The assessee

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 ` 16,42,713, it is the submission of the assessee that the said amount pertains to payments made by farmers/agriculturist to the labourers directly for unloading charges without any recourse

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

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

56 of Income Tax Act, 1960 by wrongly applying ratio laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Totagars Co. Op. sale Society Ltd. vs. ITO as the facts of the appellant's case distinguished from Totagars case. 4. That the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in considering the source of fund for Fixed Deposit as surplus funds available

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

TDS as per provisions of section 194H of the Act. The learned CIT(A) held that the in view of the amendment made in section 40a(ia) of the Act and in section 201(1) of the Act by Finance Act, 2012, has no retrospective effect and the case laws relied upon by the assessee are not relevant with

YASH TRAVELS AND TOURS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(2) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Yash Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward–2(2), Nagpur F–5, Shrdha House, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kingsway, Nagpur–4440001. Nagpur–440001. [Pan: Aaacy3931D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

TDS is made, is clearly discernible at page No. 56 of PB (copy of Form-26 AS). However, the amount of original compensation of Rs. 13.08 Crore was treated as income from ‘other sources’. The treatment of such amount of compensation as income from ‘other sources’ is erroneous. We find that CBDT in its Circular No.36 of 2016 directed that

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

TDS of Rs.12,52,000 has been duly deposited with government and hence, disallowance under section 40a(ia) is not warranted. 8 Latitude Infraventures ITA no.349 & 350/Nag./2024 A.Y. 2016–17 & 2017–18 3.5 Therefore, the issues sought to be revised by the learned CIT does not result into any prejudice to the Revenue. Therefore, the twin condition of order

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

TDS of Rs.12,52,000 has been duly deposited with government and hence, disallowance under section 40a(ia) is not warranted. 8 Latitude Infraventures ITA no.349 & 350/Nag./2024 A.Y. 2016–17 & 2017–18 3.5 Therefore, the issues sought to be revised by the learned CIT does not result into any prejudice to the Revenue. Therefore, the twin condition of order

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