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, 234B and 234C

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

STELLAR REFRACTORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

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

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

condoned as per Section 10 of General Clauses Act. Further it is also observed that the assessee has no intention not to deposit the contribution of ESI & EPF well within the time, depositing the contribution very next day of Holiday proves the bona-fide of the Assessee. Therefore, in our opinion, the authorities have committed error in disallowing the deposit

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

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 the present appeal before

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

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

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 the present appeal

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

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 in filing the appeal

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

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 High School Trust

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

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 the present appeal

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