ANAND GOVIND THATTE,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), 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 56(2)(vii)(b) is highly excessive and which deserves to be substantially reduced in the interest of justice. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals dismissing the appeal of the Appellant is not proper and the appeal of the Appellant deserves proper

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE AT NGP, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on ground of merits. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust, registered under Society Registration Act, 1860 in the office of Charity Commissioner, Wardha. The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 on 31.03.2017 declaring total income

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) -4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on ground of merits. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust, registered under Society Registration Act, 1860 in the office of Charity Commissioner, Wardha. The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 on 31.03.2017 declaring total income

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) - 4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard on ground of merits. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust, registered under Society Registration Act, 1860 in the office of Charity Commissioner, Wardha. The assessee filed return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 on 31.03.2017 declaring total income

NIMSHASKIYA MADHYANIK SHALEY KARAMCHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD.,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, WARDHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

condone the delay of 22 days in filing the present appeal and admit the same for adjudication on merit. 4. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. Whether the Ld. AO and CIT(A) is correct in disallowing a sum of Rs. 3,27,687/- from deduction claimed under Sec 80P as interest income on deposit nationalized

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)

delay is condoned. 4. In this case, the Assessee is a cooperative society engaged in accepting deposits and providing credit facilities to its members, consisting of only employees of Irrigation department of Maharashtra State in Wardha District. The Assessee by filing its return of income on dated 01/11/2017 and declaring total income at Rs. NIL, claimed the deduction under Chapter

M/S. NEERI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

delay of 142 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. We now proceed to dispose off the appeal on merit. 5. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is an Employee’s Co–operative Credit Society for the employees working at National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI). For the year under consideration, the assessee Society filed

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

GURINDERSINGH INDRAJEETSINGH NAYYAR,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-2, 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

56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act to income of the assessee, ignoring the facts of the case as well as submissions and documentary evidences filed by the assessee. 2 Gurindersingh Indrajeetsingh Nayyar ITA no.61/Nag./2024 3. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting request for condonation of delay in filing appeal without

JANKALYAN SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,TUMSAR vs. ITO WARD - 1, BHANDARA, BHANDARA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

delay being minor, the same is hereby condoned. 4. The short issue that we need to adjudication relates to addition under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on account of interest income earned from Nationalised Bank by treating it as income from other sources. 5. The assessee is a Society registered under the Maharashtra Co– operative Societies

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

condone the delay and proceed for adjudication. 6. Before us, the appellant has submitted the detailed submissions contained in page 6 to 21 of paper book, which are reproduced below for clear understanding of the gamut of the dispute. 6.1 With above short summary of the case, Appellant would humbly like to submit the following for your kind consideration : Sr.No

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

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted. 3. The Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a senior citizen and has not filed her return of income for the A.Y. 2018–19.The Assessing Officer has received information that the assessee has purchased immovable property in the F.Y. 2017–18 and the purchase consideration is being below

MADHUR LAXMAN GADIKAR,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(1), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemadhur Laxman Gadikar, Kharbikar Mohalla, House No.426–B Ward No.27, Golibar Chowk ……………. Appellant Jaganath Gol, Nagpur-440018, Maharashtra, Pan – Avzpg3725G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(1), Nagpur Assessee By :Shri Abhishek Kumar. A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. D.R.

section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 4. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO is justified in passing an order where no independent enquiry was made or record under Sec 133(6) was called for. 5. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case

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

SHAMLAX METACHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

56. ITA no.146/Nag./2021A.Y. 2019–20 05.10.2021 143(1) 2. At the outset, the Registry has pointed out that the appeals are time barred, the details of which are given above. We also find that assessee has filed a delay condonation application explaining the fact that due to COVID-19 pandemic, lockdown was imposed from 24th March

JAIKA VEHICLE TRADE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

56. ITA no.146/Nag./2021A.Y. 2019–20 05.10.2021 143(1) 2. At the outset, the Registry has pointed out that the appeals are time barred, the details of which are given above. We also find that assessee has filed a delay condonation application explaining the fact that due to COVID-19 pandemic, lockdown was imposed from 24th March

PRADEEP KUNDU,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

56. ITA no.146/Nag./2021A.Y. 2019–20 05.10.2021 143(1) 2. At the outset, the Registry has pointed out that the appeals are time barred, the details of which are given above. We also find that assessee has filed a delay condonation application explaining the fact that due to COVID-19 pandemic, lockdown was imposed from 24th March

JAIKA VEHICLE TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIKA BUILDING vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

56. ITA no.146/Nag./2021A.Y. 2019–20 05.10.2021 143(1) 2. At the outset, the Registry has pointed out that the appeals are time barred, the details of which are given above. We also find that assessee has filed a delay condonation application explaining the fact that due to COVID-19 pandemic, lockdown was imposed from 24th March