SHRI PANCMURTI EDUCATION SOCIETY,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-4(5), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as above

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

condone the delay in furnishing the auditor's report and accept the same at a belated stage. It has been clarified that the exemption available to the trust under section 11 may not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the auditor's report. The word <169>shall<170> occurring in section 12A cannot, under the circumstances

CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,NAGPUR,NAGPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), CIT (E), INCOME TAX OFFICE, PMT BUILDING, SHANKAR SETH ROAD, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

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

139 taxmann.com 121, wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal while adjudicating the issue of similar provisions of due date under section 10(23C) of the Act, after placing reliance on various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and that of Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "5. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case

AKSHAY DEVIDAS TAJANE,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD -1, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in terms indicated above

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

delay in filing Denial of relief u/s 90 2. 253 Form no.67, should have been at ` 1,94,852 condoned. 2 Shri Akshay Devidas Tajane ITA no.161/Nag./2025 The CPC/Addl. JCIT(A)–1, Guru– gram is not justified in denying Denial of relief u/s 90 3. 253 the relief under section 90, at ` 1,94,852 without giving any reason

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

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

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

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

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

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

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

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

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

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

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

139 of the Act. 12. The learned A.R. further submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition of ` 12 lakh, on account of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act when, on the date of search (i.e., 11/07/2019), the assessment year 2014–15 had already been unabated / completed, since scrutiny assessment under section

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condone the delay of 267 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit, as no mala fide intention can be ascribed to the assessee. 5. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is a Company engaged in financial activities. The assessee, on 30/09/2013, filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring total loss

SIMA RAVISINGH KACHHAWAH,UMRER vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadalesima Ravisingh Kachhawah, Girad Road, Om Nagar Umrer, ……………. Appellant Nagpur- 441203 Maharastra, Pan – Aqmpk2899K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

9), and charged interest under Sections 234A and 234B, along with fees under Section 234F of the Act for non-filing of the income tax return under Section 139(1). The same shall be deleted. 15. The learned CIT (A) NFAC has erred in law and acted unjustifiably by confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer without conducting

M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 1(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

condone the delay of 32 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 3. The sole issue for our adjudication relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted purchases. 4. Facts in Brief:– In this case, during the year, the assessee is engaged in the business of trading

GANESH MAHADEORAO THAWARE,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD 5(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for the relevant year of assessment. The Assessing Officer observed that since the assessee's income is above the basic limit of tax exemption, it was mandatory for the assessee to file return of income within the prescribed time limit. However, the assessee has not complied to this legal requirement

HERD EDUCATIONAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(3), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2023-24

condone the same u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act and therefore the Assessee should have filed such petition before the appropriate authority and not before the Ld. Commissioner. The Ld. Commissioner consequently dismissed the appeal of the Assessee. 4. The Assessee has claimed that it had filed original return of income well before the due date

ALFIYA AYAZALI SAYYAD,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

delay is hereby condoned. Accordingly, we now proceed to dispose off the appeal filed by the assessee on merit. 5. Insofar as the merit of the case is concerned, the brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has made purchases from M/s. Meridian Trading Company amounting to ` 72,34,240, and from M/s. Glob Impex (India) amounting

MANAV SEVA LOK KALYAN MAHASANGH,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE EXEMPTIOM, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roymanav Seva Lok Kalyan Vs Dcit/Acit, Circle Mahasangh, H.No. 32, Teka Exemption, Nagpur Naka, Asi Nagar, Nagpur. Pan : Aabtm 1643 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2026

condoned as per law and in the interest of justice. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant having filed the audit report in Form 10B along with the return of income which was filed within time, the same deserves to be accepted and the benefit of income applied for charitable purposes which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S. FUELCO COAL INDIA LTD., NAGPUR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

condoned. In this regard, it is to be mentioned here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 10/01/2022, passed in M.A. no.21 of 2022, in M.A. no.665 of 2021, in Suo-Motu Writ Petition (Civil) no.3 of 2020, has held that the limitation period for filing the appeal was extended upto 29/05/2022. In view of this, since

GOPAL DENESHCHANDRA TULSHAN ,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

delay in filing the appeal. Your honour is most humbly requested to consider the said condonation application sympathetically and admit the same for hearing. 1) Regarding Ground no.1 to 4:– In the assessment order A.O. has disallowed interest expenses at ` 2,03,227, under section 50(a)(ia), the break up of which is as under:– a) M/s. Kach Ghar