BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts. 8. To sum up, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts. 8. To sum up, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts. 8. To sum up, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts. 8. To sum up, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts. 8. To sum up, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts. 8. To sum up, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts. 8. To sum up, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts. 8. To sum up, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts. 8. To sum up, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.  Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts. 8. To sum up, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee

M/S SHRIGOPAL RAMESHKUMAR SALES PVT. LTD ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

condone the delay of 702 days in filing of the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 5. The sole dispute involved in this appeal relates to addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) amounting to ` 2,50,00,000, allegedly held to have been received by the assessee in cash. 6. The assessee is engaged

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S SPACEWOOD FURNISHERS PVT. LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and the C

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Dcit Vs. M/S. Spacewood Furnishers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 1(3) T-48, Midc, Hinga, Nagpur Nagpur Pan No.: Aaccs 4955 R Appellant Respondent

condoned the delay as the grounds are purely legal and further those very grounds are already taken in appeals filed before us by the directors of the Assessee- Company in their individual appeal which has to be decided by us. Accordingly we have admitted the cross objection for our adjudication. 3. The facts of this case are that the Assessee

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

condonation of delay is granted. (iii) On going through the submissions filed by the assessee I am of the considered opinion that the issues contained in the response of the assessee require extensive enquiries and verification which may not be possible with the machinery available at the level of Commissioner (Appeals). It would best serve in the interest of justice

JALSAMPDA KARMCHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,WARDHA vs. ITO WARD 2 , WARDHA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryjalsampda Karmchari Ito, Ward-2, Wardha. Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Wardha, 1, Dr. Vs. Adyalkar Bhavan, Arvi Road, Shivaji Square, Wardha-442001 Pan: Aaaaw 0478 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

153 days January- 2025 3 Health Issue of the President 1st Feb 2025 to 74 days of the Society 15th April 2025 4 Papers submissions to the 16th April 2025 to 20 days Consultant at Nagpur 5th May 2025 Total Days 301 days 4. Sufficient Cause for delay in filing the Appeal: Assessee hereby declare that there was no deliberate

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

153 (+) 90 days, he stated that there was delay due to COVID–19 pandemic situation. 4. Having heard the learned Departmental Representative and having gone through the contents of the affidavit filed by the assessee, we are of the opinion that, for the reason stated in the affidavit, the assessee is prevented by filing the present appeal belatedly and hence

JAI KONDESHWAR NAGARI SAHAKARI BADNERAPAT SANSTHA MARYADIT ,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

delay is condoned. 3. In the instant case, the CPC/A.O. vide intimation/order dated 16/01/2023 denied the deduction claimed by the assessee u/sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act, therefore the assessee being aggrieved challenged the order of CPC/A.O. mentioned above, in the first appellate proceedings. However, in spite of affording two opportunities, made no compliance before the Ld. Commissioner

SHRI AHMED JIWANI ,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 143(3) assessment in the last assessment year 2012-13. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the Assessing Officer had made various additions in the above stated assessments which stand partly confirmed in the CIT(A)’s corresponding orders under challenge before us. 4. Both the learned representatives vehemently reiterated their respective stands before

SHRI AHMED JIWANI ,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 143(3) assessment in the last assessment year 2012-13. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the Assessing Officer had made various additions in the above stated assessments which stand partly confirmed in the CIT(A)’s corresponding orders under challenge before us. 4. Both the learned representatives vehemently reiterated their respective stands before