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

87,98,351/- made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961, though no tax at source u/s. 194C has been deducted. 3. Regarding the appeal in ITA No.435/NAG/2014, at the outset, the Ld. DR submitted this is a case where the assessee made payments to the middlemen for the purpose of disbursement among the truck owners for rendering

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

87,98,351/- made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961, though no tax at source u/s. 194C has been deducted. 3. Regarding the appeal in ITA No.435/NAG/2014, at the outset, the Ld. DR submitted this is a case where the assessee made payments to the middlemen for the purpose of disbursement among the truck owners for rendering

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

87,98,351/- made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961, though no tax at source u/s. 194C has been deducted. 3. Regarding the appeal in ITA No.435/NAG/2014, at the outset, the Ld. DR submitted this is a case where the assessee made payments to the middlemen for the purpose of disbursement among the truck owners for rendering

TALUKA AGRICULTURE OFFICER ,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO, TDS WARD-2(3), CHANDRAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

section 200A of the Act is not applicable, therefore, the order of CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the order passed u/s. 200A confirming the levy of fee u/s. 234E of the Act for default in furnishing TDS statement for A.Y. 2013-14 and it is set aside. 6. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

KIRTI POPATBHAI PATEL,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

section 200A of the Act is not applicable, therefore, the order of CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the order passed u/s. 200A confirming the levy of fee u/s. 234E of the Act for default in furnishing TDS statement for A.Y. 2013-14 and it is set aside. 6. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

TALUKA AGRICULTURE OFFICER,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO TDS WARD- 2(3), CHANDRAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

section 200A of the Act is not applicable, therefore, the order of CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the order passed u/s. 200A confirming the levy of fee u/s. 234E of the Act for default in furnishing TDS statement for A.Y. 2013-14 and it is set aside. 6. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

TARANGAN INFRAVENTRURES PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC- TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

section 200A of the Act is not applicable, therefore, the order of CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the order passed u/s. 200A confirming the levy of fee u/s. 234E of the Act for default in furnishing TDS statement for A.Y. 2013-14 and it is set aside. 6. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

MPA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

section 200A of the Act is not applicable, therefore, the order of CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the order passed u/s. 200A confirming the levy of fee u/s. 234E of the Act for default in furnishing TDS statement for A.Y. 2013-14 and it is set aside. 6. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI DHARAMPAL R.AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

section 153A of the Act by making following additions after examining the Profit & Loss Account, Tax Audit Report determining total income of ` 20,88,76,440. Gold ornaments, Silver articles found at residence. 1. ` 65,62,158 Protective addition Gold ornaments, Silver articles etc. found in bank ` 50,47,355 2. locker and cash. Addition on protective basis Estimation

SHRI DEEPAK SURESH GADGE,,NAGPUR vs. JOINT. CIT, CIR.- I, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Deepak Suresh Gadge, The Joint Commissioner Of Pranav Apartments, Iind Lane, Income Tax- Circle-I, Behind The Hitvada, Dhantoli, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagpur Vs. Bhavan, Fifth Floor, Mecl Building, Seminary Hills, Pan : Abzpg6643H Nagpur- 440006

87,017/-. Since, the case was selected for scrutiny, notice u/s 143 (2) and 141 (1) were issued. In response to the said notices, the authorized representative of the assessee appeared before the AO and submitted the details called for. It was noticed that assessee had paid interest of Rs. 2 Assessment Year: 2010-11 16,22,585/- to Citi

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 , 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

87,51,810. 4. The only issue for our adjudication relates to the addition of ` 5.88 crore, on account of disallowance of entire payment made and claimed by the assessee contractor firm to sub–contractors treating the same as bogus. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, on a perusal of submission made by the assessee, noticed

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

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

section 68 of the Act and interest paid on such credits have already been decided by us vide Para-20 to 25, of this order, wherein we have decided this issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue for the detailed reasoning given therein. Consistent with the view taken by us, similar additions are deleted in these 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

section 68 of the Act and interest paid on such credits have already been decided by us vide Para-20 to 25, of this order, wherein we have decided this issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue for the detailed reasoning given therein. Consistent with the view taken by us, similar additions are deleted in these 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

section 68 of the Act and interest paid on such credits have already been decided by us vide Para-20 to 25, of this order, wherein we have decided this issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue for the detailed reasoning given therein. Consistent with the view taken by us, similar additions are deleted in these 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

section 68 of the Act and interest paid on such credits have already been decided by us vide Para-20 to 25, of this order, wherein we have decided this issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue for the detailed reasoning given therein. Consistent with the view taken by us, similar additions are deleted in these 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

section 68 of the Act and interest paid on such credits have already been decided by us vide Para-20 to 25, of this order, wherein we have decided this issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue for the detailed reasoning given therein. Consistent with the view taken by us, similar additions are deleted in these years