DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

exemption under section 11 of IT. Act, on the ground that the AO cannot disallow exemption of section 11 of I.T. Act merely

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2 (1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

exemption under section 11 of IT. Act, on the ground that the AO cannot disallow exemption of section 11 of I.T. Act merely

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

exemption under section 11 of IT. Act, on the ground that the AO cannot disallow exemption of section 11 of I.T. Act merely

RAVINDRA MADHUKAR KHARCHE,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE, CHANDRAPUR, CHANDRAPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Virtually From Itat, Pune) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 228/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ravindra Madhukar Kharche, 602, Nilgiri Himalaya Empire, Phulmati Layout, Badikheda, Nagpur. Pan: Ackpk1961E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

exemption of gratuity to ₹10 Lakhs u/c (ii) of section 10(10) of the Act as against the claim of ₹20 Lakhs made in revised ITR. (b) addition of ₹21,550/- being difference of interest income offered to tax as against the income reported in form 26AS. The assessee did not challenge the disallowances

MAHESHKUMAR BADRIBISHAL BHARTIYA,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1,, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Shri Ajitkumar Badriprasad Bhartiya Dcit, Circle –1 A–704, Anandam World City, Vs Bsnl–Rttc Building, Umred Road, Ganeshopeth, Seminary Hills, Nagpur – 440018. Nagpur – 440001. [Pan: Abbpb0801G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

disallowed in respect of adjoining flat, whereby assessing officer, out of total exemption under section 54F disallowed `. 13,54,096/–. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed

SHRI AJITKUMAR BADRIPRASAD BHARTIYA,NAGPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Shri Ajitkumar Badriprasad Bhartiya Dcit, Circle –1 A–704, Anandam World City, Vs Bsnl–Rttc Building, Umred Road, Ganeshopeth, Seminary Hills, Nagpur – 440018. Nagpur – 440001. [Pan: Abbpb0801G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

disallowed in respect of adjoining flat, whereby assessing officer, out of total exemption under section 54F disallowed `. 13,54,096/–. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

exempt under section 10(34) of the Act and claimed expenditure at ₹ 15,75,789, in the return of income. The Assessing Officer has made disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) - 4, NAGPUR vs. DEENDAYAL SEVA PRATISHTHAN, YAVATMAL

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

exemption claimed under section 11(1)(d)] and Sr.no. 4i to 4viii of Part B-TI is not allowable in accordance with the provisions of section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. The CPC disallowed

THE VIDARBHA REGION LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION EMPLOYEES CO OP SOCIETY LTD, ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 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

exemption claimed by it. He accordingly, disallowed the claim of exemption of the assessee of ` 1,97,83,227, and make

NARENDRA RAMCHANDRA DESHPANDE,WARDHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARDHA, WARDHA

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalenarendra Ramdhandra Deshpande Manorama Complex, Sudampuri Arvi Road, Wardha -442 001, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Aazpd4477F V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–1, Wardha, ……………. Respondent Ito, Building, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Amolkalavikatte.A.R. Revenue By :Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

disallowing the appellant claim of exemption of rs.56,698/- in respect of gratuity under section 10(10)(i) of the Income

SANJAY GULABCHAND GUPTA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

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

disallowance so made by the AO in respect of exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 1,58,64,162/-. 2. The Appellant

BHAKTVATSAL SADGURU YOGIRAJ VASANTRAO GOPALRAO GHONGE MAHARAJ TRUST,WARDHA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

exemption u/s 11 of the Act and disallowing the expenses towards the object of the trust. 2 Bhaktvatsal Sadguru Yogiraj

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

disallowance should be scaled down in between 2% to 20% of exempt income-Revenue submitted that provisions of Rule 8D were

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)

Exemption), Pune, whereby application dated 31/05/2021 which is pending for disposal and, therefore, CPC is correct on disallowance exemption u/sec

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH D. GUPTA, NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowance of agricultural income of Rs.2,59,309/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of denial of exemption of agricultural

SYED NAZIM MOINUDDIN QUAZI,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesayed Nazim Maoinuddin Quazi, Pltono.11–A & House Noquadri Enclave, Opp. Suri Laws Behind Police Line Takli ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 013, Maharashtra. Pan–Aaapq2442A V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–2(3), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By:Ms.Alfiya Rozie, A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

disallowing the exemption claimed by the appellant 3. The appellant craves leave to add or alter any other ground that

BHAVIKA GUNWANT PATEL,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee are allowed

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

exemption from tax u/s 10(38). The appellant had sold shares on various dates amounting to Rs.3,14,267/- which as per AO nothing but an accommodation entry to introduce capital in business. Since, the appellant failed to establish proper link with such transaction, the AO disallowed

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI SUDHIR RAMSWAROOP SARDA , NAGPUR

disallowed this exemption and treated the sale consideration of Rs. 2,52,47,265/- as unexplained cash credits under Section