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

SHRI SANDEEP SARBATMAL KOTHARI,CHANDRAPUR vs. A.C.I.T., CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE,CHANDRAPUR, CHANDRAPUR

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

Bench: SHRI S.S.GODARA (Judicial Member), DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 05.12.2017 for A.Y.2015-16. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating issue with regards to addition of Rs.49,96,793 made by learned AO due to difference between receipts shown as per Books of accounts vis- Shri Sandeep Sarbatmal

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated separately. The assessee being aggrieved, carried the matter before the learned CIT(A). 7. The learned CIT(A), in view of the submissions made by the assessee, held that the action of the Assessing Officer in making the impugned addition is not found to be sustainable in the facts

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; 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.7,59,397 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 29. The Assessing Officer has made following additions:– Opening bal. Interest credited Loan creditors

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; 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.7,59,397 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 29. The Assessing Officer has made following additions:– Opening bal. Interest credited Loan creditors

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; 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.7,59,397 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 29. The Assessing Officer has made following additions:– Opening bal. Interest credited Loan creditors

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; 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.7,59,397 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 29. The Assessing Officer has made following additions:– Opening bal. Interest credited Loan creditors

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; 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.7,59,397 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 29. The Assessing Officer has made following additions:– Opening bal. Interest credited Loan creditors

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; 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.7,59,397 is not justified, is liable to be deleted.” 29. The Assessing Officer has made following additions:– Opening bal. Interest credited Loan creditors

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR vs. NITIN SUBHASH SHARMA, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeals by the Revenue for the A

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

TDS on payment to the appellant u/s 194C of the Act. The AO has not brought out that such payers were bogus or did not exist or that such receipts were not genuine. Thus, the sources of such receipts can be taken to be from contractual receipts. It is also noted that the appellant had not filed any returns

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR vs. NITIN SUBHASH SHARMA, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeals by the Revenue for the A

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

TDS on payment to the appellant u/s 194C of the Act. The AO has not brought out that such payers were bogus or did not exist or that such receipts were not genuine. Thus, the sources of such receipts can be taken to be from contractual receipts. It is also noted that the appellant had not filed any returns

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR vs. NITIN SUBHASH SHARMA, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeals by the Revenue for the A

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

TDS on payment to the appellant u/s 194C of the Act. The AO has not brought out that such payers were bogus or did not exist or that such receipts were not genuine. Thus, the sources of such receipts can be taken to be from contractual receipts. It is also noted that the appellant had not filed any returns

CHANDRAKUMAR MADHUSUDANJI JAJODIA,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

96) C) A.O. in regular assessment framed on 10/08/2015 has accepted the loan obtained from M/s Abhilasha Shoppers Pvt. Ltd. to be genuine. Identity and creditworthiness of the lender was accepted by A.O. Fresh information to initiate reassessment is general in nature and is not on specific transaction of assessee. Evidence placed on record is not found to be incorrect

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

section of Act. In this ground there are two different additions are made: one is addition towards opening sundry creditors and second one is regarding addition towards credits in sundry creditors is discussed as below: The AO during the assessment proceeding noticed that there are opening credit balances in accounts of 12 Sundry creditors totalling

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

TDS on the interest payments as stated by the AO in the Remand Report. On facts, it is held that the addition made by the AO was not justified. The addition of Rs. 7,86,217/- made by the AO due to disallowance of interest is, therefore, deleted. The AO is directed accordingly.” 12 Shree Agarwal Finance India

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON vs. RENUKA OIL INDUSTRIES, KHAMGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

section 35AD(4), not disputing the factum or quantum (except disallowance of construction expenses of Rs 1.90.70,349 discussed in succeeding paragraphs) of investment in construction of the warehouse by the appellant and its in principle eligibility for deduction u/s 35AD by the AO, etc, are the various other factors which substantiate the genuineness et the claim of the appellant