BANK OF INDIA,MAHAL BRANCH NAGPUR vs. DY.CIT(TDS)CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

32 SOT 365 (Mum) where it has been held that for substantial interest of justice, technical delay should be ignored. The appellant Bank further relies on the decision of Jaipur Benches in case of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Umrao Complex, M.I. Road, Jaipur vs DCIT (TDS), Jaipur. The appellant Bank further relies on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court

BANK OF INDIA, DONGARGAON NAGPUR vs. DY.CIT(TDS), CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

32 SOT 365 (Mum) where it has been held that for substantial interest of justice, technical delay should be ignored. The appellant Bank further relies on the decision of Jaipur Benches in case of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Umrao Complex, M.I. Road, Jaipur vs DCIT (TDS), Jaipur. The appellant Bank further relies on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court

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 of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 8. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time

PURUSHOTTAM NARAYANRAO JADHAO,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD 3(4), 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 44AD, which is excessive and does not correspond to the actual business income reflected as per audited books of accounts. 5. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned AO erred in making-an addition of Rs.I3,04,245 by erroneously treating the same as professional receipts whereas, the same were part of contractual receipts and only

TAJSHREE AUTOWHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

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

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

condone the delay of 446 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 5. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of Automobiles and Auto Parts. During the year under consideration, the assessee–company allotted addition 2,00,000 shares for a premium of ` 40, per share

RAJURA NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,CHANDRAPUR vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5, CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

condone the delay of 418 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 5. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is a resident AOP (Association of Persons), engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members and assessed to tax. For the assessment year 2016-17, the return of income was filed

VASUNDHARA BAHUUDESHIYA SAMAJIKK SANSTHA,KHAMGAON vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vasundhara Bahuudeshiya Vs. C.I.T.(Exemptions) Samajik Sanstha, Pune At Nagpur. 1, Vasundhara, Madhav Nagar, Khamgaon-444303. Pan No.: Aaabv 0305 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. C.I.T.(Exemptions), Pune At Nagpur Dated 23/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assesee. “1. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit By Taking A Recourse To Section 263 Is Illegal & Bad In Law, When The A.O. Has Made Sufficient Enquiries During The Assessment Procedure. 2. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Without Considering Appellant’S Submission Is Illegal & Bad In Law. 3. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit Even Though If It Is Termed As Erroneous But It Is Not Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. As The Donation Has Been Duly Disclosed By The Appellant In Their

condone the delay in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 7. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is registered as a Public Charitable Trust under the Bombay Public Trust

MAYUR KHARA,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

32 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur recorded is erroneous and which is also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In latter cases, the CIT has to examine the order of the Assessing Officer on merits or the decision taken by the Assessing Officer on merits and then hold and form an opinion on merits that

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

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

SHRI PANDURANG SANSTHAN DEULGAON MALI,MEHKAR vs. ITO WARD-2, EXEMP, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Pandurang Sansthan Ito (Exemption), Deulgaon Mali At Post Deulgaon Ward-2, Nagpur. Vs. Mahi, Mehkar-443001 Pan: Aagts 8497 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay is condoned. 3. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that in this case, the Assessee being a public charitable trust registered under applicable laws, filed its return of income on dated 31/03/2019 declaring total income of Rs. 32,099/- for the assessment year under consideration before the due date as per section

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

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on ground of merits. 5. On various grounds of appeal, the Ld. AR stated that the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of this bench in case of co-owner namely Manisha Ashutosh Shewalkar

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

32 of the Scheme enables the employer to recover the employees contributions from the wages of the employees. The initial responsibility for making payment of the contributions lies on the employer irrespective of the fact whether the wages are paid in time or not. As such, the Provident Fund payments made after the due date will attract the penal damages

FATTESING PUNAJI DHABRE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX – 2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

delay in filing appeal is condoned. Now, adverting to merits of the case. 9. We find that assessment under section 147 read with section 143(3) was completed on 21.12.2018. in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer (AO) recorded that notices under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee and that such notices were replied by assessee with details

CHAWLA SAREE DEPOT,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section under Date of order which passed by Sr. the Appeal Number and Assessment Year the first no. order is appellate appealed authority against passed 1. ITA no.84/Nag./2021A.Y. 2019–20 29.07.2021 143(1) 2. ITA no.90/Nag./2021A.Y. 2018–19 29.07.2021 143(1) 3. ITA No.99/Nag./2021A.Y. 2018–19 01.08.2021 143(1) 4. ITA no.100/Nag./2021A.Y

STELLAR REFRACTORIES PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section under Date of order which passed by Sr. the Appeal Number and Assessment Year the first no. order is appellate appealed authority against passed 1. ITA no.84/Nag./2021A.Y. 2019–20 29.07.2021 143(1) 2. ITA no.90/Nag./2021A.Y. 2018–19 29.07.2021 143(1) 3. ITA No.99/Nag./2021A.Y. 2018–19 01.08.2021 143(1) 4. ITA no.100/Nag./2021A.Y

M/S. DHANDHANIA INFOTECH ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section under Date of order which passed by Sr. the Appeal Number and Assessment Year the first no. order is appellate appealed authority against passed 1. ITA no.84/Nag./2021A.Y. 2019–20 29.07.2021 143(1) 2. ITA no.90/Nag./2021A.Y. 2018–19 29.07.2021 143(1) 3. ITA No.99/Nag./2021A.Y. 2018–19 01.08.2021 143(1) 4. ITA no.100/Nag./2021A.Y

MAHAVIR COAL WASHIERS PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section under Date of order which passed by Sr. the Appeal Number and Assessment Year the first no. order is appellate appealed authority against passed 1. ITA no.84/Nag./2021A.Y. 2019–20 29.07.2021 143(1) 2. ITA no.90/Nag./2021A.Y. 2018–19 29.07.2021 143(1) 3. ITA No.99/Nag./2021A.Y. 2018–19 01.08.2021 143(1) 4. ITA no.100/Nag./2021A.Y