BHAWANA HARIRAM LAVHALE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

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

condoned the nominal delay as explained in application and affidavit submitted and adjudicated the grounds on merits of the case. 5. The learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal summarily without considering the merits of grounds on the basis of evidence on record. 6. The notice issued u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid

BHAWANA HARIRAM LAVHALE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2013–14 is allowed for statistical purposes

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

condoned the nominal delay as explained in application and affidavit submitted and adjudicated the grounds on merits of the case. 5. The learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal summarily without considering the merits of grounds on the basis of evidence on record. 6. The notice issued u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid

SANT TUKDOJI NAGRI SHAHKARI PAT SANSTHA LIMITED, HINGANGHAT,HINGANGHAT vs. ITO WARD - 2, WARDHA

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 234A, 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 10. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 3. Before us, at the very outset, the Registry has pointed out a delay of 209 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed application dated nil requesting

ANANT RAMRAO CHAVAN,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMRAVATI

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

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

delay be condoned and appeal should be taken up for hearing. 7. The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section 234A

CINE CORPORATION OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

234A and 234B. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the calculation is improper. (6) That for any other ground with kind permission of your honour at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. When this appeal is taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel, appearing for the assessee submitted that the learned

VIJAYKUMAR ROOPLALJI JAISWAL,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalevijaykumar Rooplalji Jaiswal, 46, Middle Ring Road, East Wardhaman Nagar, ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440008, Maharashtra. Pan–Abrpj7368Q V/S A.C.I T. Circle–4, ……………. Respondent Nagpur-440001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.K.P. Dewani, A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

section 234A, 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 5. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assessee has filed an application

SHRI VILASRAO DESHMUKH SHIKSHAN PRASARAK VA BAHUDESHIYA S BULDANA,BULDHANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(EXEMPTION), NAGPUR

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 234A, 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 16. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 3 Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh Shikshan Prasarak VA Bahudeshiya S. Buldana 3. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out a delay of 55 days in filing the present appeal before

NAG VIDARBHA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Nag Vidarbha Chamber Of Income Tax Officer Commerce, Temple Road Ward-2(1) Civil Lines Vs. Nagpur Nagpur Pan:Aaacn 9456C (Respondent) (Appellant)

delay in filing the present Appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the Affidavit. Nag Vidarbha Chamber of Commercevs. ITO 3. Brief facts of the case: The assessment order came to be passed on 28/08/2014 against the Assessee company by assessing the income of the Assessee at Rs.4,33,110/- as against the returned income of Rs.1

ASHUTOSH RAM SHEWALKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2), NAGPUR

In the result, both the above Tax

Bench: Shripawan Singh& Shrikhettra Mohan Royashutosh Ram Shewalkar Ito, Ward – 5(2) 80, North Ambazari Road, Vs Bsnl, Rttcbldg Daga Layout Nagpur – 440010 Dharmapeth, Nagpur - 440010 [Pan: Aepps8104N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shrimanoj G Moryani, Adv& Shribhavesh M. Moryani, Adv Revenue By Shrisurjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 01.04.2026

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax act, the same may kindly be deleted 10. The appellant craves leave to amend, add or take a new ground or grounds at the time of hearing;” ITA431/Nag/2024 (A.Y. 2014–15) Ashutosh Ram Shewalkar 2. At the very outset, we noticed that there is a delay of 79 day in filing

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

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 any independent verification, without properly considering

SHYAMKUMAR CHANDULAL SUGANDH,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

234A, 234B and 234C is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 6. The appellant seeks permission to add any other ground of appeal or amend or alter the aforesaid ground of appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 147 days in filing

SARVODAYA NAGRI CO OP PAT SOC LTD,SHEGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, KHAMGAON

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 9. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 3. There is a delay of 48 days in filing the present appeal. The said delay is hereby condoned

KANHAIYA KRUSHI KENDRA,YAVATMAL vs. ITO WARD -1 , YAVATMAL

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalekanhaiya Krushi Kendra Main Bazar Line, Fulsa Wangi Mahagaon Dist. ……………. Appellant Yavatmal-445001, Maharashtra. Pan – Aaofk4226A V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–1, ……………. Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, Yavatmal-445001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shriabhishek Kumar, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. D.R.

234A, 234 B and 234 C of the Income Tax act 1961 being consequential in nature needs to be deleted. 5) Assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal before

LEENA ASHOK ZOPE,AKOLA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,AKOLA, AKOLA

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleleena Ashok Zope, At Post Kurum, Tq. Murtizapur Dist. Akola -444 115, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan- Aatpz1101G V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–3, Aayakar Bhawan, ……………. Respondent Akola-444001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Manoj G. Moryani.Ar Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, the same may kindly be deleted. 11. The appellant craves leave to amend, add or take a new ground or grounds at the time of hearing.” 3 Leena Ashok Zope 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 42 days

AMRAVATI JILHA VIMA KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

condonation of delay and decided appeal on merits, therefore order passed is illegal, invalid and bad in law; 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.12,25,000/- as interest income on investments of Rs.1,75,00,000/- though the same were not received during the previous year

THE JAMSETJI NUSSERWANJI TATA PARSI HIGH SCHOOL TRUST,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC, BENGALORE, BANGALORE

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

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

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Charitable Trust and running a School. For the year under consideration, the audit report was submitted on 17/02/2022 i.e., entailing a delay of two days from the due date The Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata Parsi

DATTU SAMPAT VANKHEDE,NAGPUR vs. PCIT-2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which confers power on the CIT to revise an assessment order not on the recommendation of the AO and all the issues of sale of two Agriculture land exempted transaction were discussed and considered at the time of reassessment u/S 147 on the basis of initially formed the reason to believe

VINOD SANWALDAS DHINGRA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

234A, 234B and 234C is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 7. The appellant seeks permission to add any other ground of appeal or amend or alter the aforesaid ground of appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 222 days in filing

SHRI. ANAND DAGA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Anand Daga Vs. The Acit 601/602, B Wing, 6Th Floor Central Circle 2(2) Lokmat Bhawan,Ramdaspeth, Nagpur Nagpur Pan No.:Aedpd 1144B Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Smt. Agnes P Thomas (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)- 3, Nagpur Dated 09-08-2021 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds.

Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of use of property constructed. 3. The appellant denies his liability to pay interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C without prejudice to levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C are unjustified and bad in law.’’ 2 Shri Anand Daga vs ACIT, CC-2(2), Nagpur 2.1 At the outset