SHRI VYANKANATH MAHARAJ SHIKSHAN SANSTHA MURTIZAPUR,AKOLA vs. ITO WARD - 2, EXEMP, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

delay of 45 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal is hereby condoned and we proceed for adjudication. 5. Shri Dewani, learned Counsel for the assessee assailed the impugned order for rejection by drawing our attention to the operative part of the impugned order dated 20/03/2024, contained in Para–6 & 7, is reproduced below:– “6. The assessee furnished reply

PANHERA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,BULDHANA vs. ITO WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON

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

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

condonation of delay which is supported by duly sworn affidavit. The contents of the application are as under:– 2 Panhera Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit “That, the Appellant/Applicant is filing the present appeal against order dated 14/06/2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 250 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. That

VINAY RAMSHARANDAS AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

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

condone the delay and admit the same for adjudication on merits. 6. Insofar as the merits of the case are concerned, the facts are, the assessee is an Individual. For the year under consideration, on 31/01/2018, the assessee filed his return of income electronically, disclosing total income of ` 12,96,33,940. During the course of regular assessment framed under

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

36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with clause 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 - Employee's contributions (PF/ESI) - Asessment year 2019-20 - Assessee made payment towards employee's contribution towards EPF and ESI with a one day delay - Assessing Officer disallowed same on ground that deposit of contribution was made beyond stipulated period prescribed

SHISHIR KUMAR DAS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-AMRAWATI, ITO BUILDING,AMRAWATI

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 250 of the Act. 6. I say that, as soon as the order came to my attention, I took immediate steps to file the appeal before your Honors. The delay was unintentional and arose due to circumstances beyond my control. 7. Due to the aforementioned circumstances, the appeal (Form 36) has been submitted with a delay of 145 days

SHISHIR KUMAR DAS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-AMRAWATI, AMRAVATI

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 250 of the Act. 6. I say that, as soon as the order came to my attention, I took immediate steps to file the appeal before your Honors. The delay was unintentional and arose due to circumstances beyond my control. 7. Due to the aforementioned circumstances, the appeal (Form 36) has been submitted with a delay of 145 days

SHISHIR KUMAR DAS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-AMRAWATI, AMRAVATI

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 250 of the Act. 6. I say that, as soon as the order came to my attention, I took immediate steps to file the appeal before your Honors. The delay was unintentional and arose due to circumstances beyond my control. 7. Due to the aforementioned circumstances, the appeal (Form 36) has been submitted with a delay of 145 days

SAURABH ASHOK AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrysaurabh Ashok Agrawal, Dcit/Acit, Circle-2, 203, Gulmohar Apartment, Civil Nagpur. Vs. Lines, Nagpur-440 001 Pan: Agipa 1809 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay is condoned. 3. In the instant case, during the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer (AO) that the Assessee had purchased a piece of land valued at Rs. 21,61,500/- vide registered sale deed dated 03/03/2015 as against the stamp duty valuation to the tune of Rs. 24,36,000/- and, therefore, added

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

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 8. It is observed that the appellant has issued 2,00,000 shares each of face value Rs. 10/- to its existing shareholders on a premium of Rs.40/- per share. Thus, the issue price per share stands at Rs.50/-. As the appellant did not furnish any report

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

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

M/S. GAJANAN COTSPIN ,BULDHANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KHAMGAON

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

condone the delay of 43 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 4. The following grounds have been raised by the assessee:– “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of interest paid of Rs.7,63,780/- from the total expenses of the Appellant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR vs. M/S. GUPTA METALLICS & POWER LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merit. 4. Facts in Brief:– The assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of sponge and iron, trading of coal, coal fines, etc. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was conducted on 29/07/2009, in the business premises

AMJAD AHMADBHAI SHEIKH,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT-CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

condoned in view of the affidavit explaining the cause of delay. 4. The brief facts are as follows as per the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative appearing for the assessee which are reproduced below:– “The CPC passed rectification order dated 29.01.2020. As the Employee's Contribution of PF and ESI were paid by the appellant after the "due date

OMPRAKASH SHANKARLAL SHARMA,DARYAPUR vs. D.C.I.T, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

delay is hereby condoned. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds:– 2 Shri Omprakash Shankarlal Sharma ITA no.156/Nag./2025 “1. THAT considering the fact of the case, the lower authorities erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,14,659/- presuming the deposited in bank is out of kerosene sale and recovery and treating the same as unexplained investments

NEELAM JANARDHAN RACHALWAR,CHIMUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryneelam Janardhan Ito, Ward-2, Chandrapur Rachalwar, Sai Mandir Road, Tilak Ward, Chimur, Vs. Chandrapur, Maharashtra Pan: Adqpr 7539 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay of 57 days in filing the present appeal, is hereby condoned. 5. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 27/12/2019 u/sec. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act has made the addition of Rs.36,13,000/- on account of difference between the consideration shown by the Assessee

SHRI SANT NARHARI NAGARI SHAHKAR PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,BHANDRA vs. ITO, WARD -2, BHANDARA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed in part for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Sant Narhari Nagari Ito, Ward-2, Bhandara Shahkar Pat Sanstha Maryadit, R.No. 1/2 Nagar Vs. Palika Shivaji Chowk, Pauni, Bhandra-441910. Pan: Aakts 3987 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay is condoned. 5. Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) vide assessment order dated 30/09/2019 has made the disallowance of Rs. 48,093/- u/sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act and Rs. 2,28,435/- on account of disallowance of provision for bad debts. 6. The Assessee being aggrieved, challenged

THE ISMAILIA URBAN CO-OP SOCIETY LTD.,YAVATMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1

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

Section under which the deduction is claimed Rs. 1. 80P(2)(a)(i) 73,64,124 2 u/s 80P(2)(c)(ii) 36,239 TOTAL Rs. 74,00,363 During the course of the Assessment proceeding, Learned Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 8-P with the following observation at Page No. 11/12 of the Assessment Order