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

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

natural justice to the assessee; v. Suspicion cannot be a good evidence for the purpose of assessment unless it is corroborated by clinching evidence brought on record after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee; vi. Payment for purchases and sales both have been made by cheque and duly reflected in the bank statement; vii. The sale of shares has been

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

natural justice to the assessee; v. Suspicion cannot be a good evidence for the purpose of assessment unless it is corroborated by clinching evidence brought on record after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee; vi. Payment for purchases and sales both have been made by cheque and duly reflected in the bank statement; vii. The sale of shares has been

INDOWORTH INDIA LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), CIRCLE 51(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

justice and same is to be deleted. 5. Appellant craves a right to add, modify, alter, or withdraw and of the ground/s of appeal during the course of hearing. PRAYS: Appellant prays before your honor to delete the non-deduction TDS and interest thereon u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of Rs.22,45,596/- or the appropriate relief

M/S INDOWORTH INDIA LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), CIRCLE 51(1) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

justice and same is to be deleted. 5. Appellant craves a right to add, modify, alter, or withdraw and of the ground/s of appeal during the course of hearing. PRAYS: Appellant prays before your honor to delete the non-deduction TDS and interest thereon u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of Rs.22,45,596/- or the appropriate relief

NARAYAN MAHADEORAO DHAWANE,MAHARASHTRA, NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD -5(1), MAHARASHTRA, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

natural justice and the same is to be deleted. 3. The disallowance of deduction u/s 54F of Rs.3,44,148/- and addition

SHRI ANIL LAKHANLAL MALVIYA,,NAGPUR vs. DY.CIT- 1,, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

natural justice. 7. The appellant denies liability to be assessed to interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Without prejudice the levy of interest is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 2. First issue of disallowance

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

disallowing the claim stating that the assessee failed to provide cogent and convincing reply to the allegations raised. We observe from the record that in identical situation the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA Nos. 4843 & 1228/Mum/2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 in the case of Ramprasad Agrawal Vrs. ITO (reported in [2018] 100 taxman.com 172 - Mum Trib

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

disallowing the claim stating that the assessee failed to provide cogent and convincing reply to the allegations raised. We observe from the record that in identical situation the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA Nos. 4843 & 1228/Mum/2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 in the case of Ramprasad Agrawal Vrs. ITO (reported in [2018] 100 taxman.com 172 - Mum Trib

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

disallowing the claim stating that the assessee failed to provide cogent and convincing reply to the allegations raised. We observe from the record that in identical situation the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in ITA Nos. 4843 & 1228/Mum/2018 for Assessment Year 2013-14 & 2014-15 in the case of Ramprasad Agrawal Vrs. ITO (reported in [2018] 100 taxman.com 172 - Mum Trib

TERRA INFRA DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

natural justice and is bad in law. 5. The learned A.O. ought not to have levied penalty in view of application for immunity having been submitted u/s 270AA of I.T. Act 1961 and requisite conditions for grant of immunity being available on record. 6. The learned A.O. erred in levying penalty u/s 270A of I.T. Act 1961 by holding that

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

disallowed Deduction under Section 80P and have considered the Business income into Other Sources which against the Basic Principles of Classification based on the Nature of Business of the Assessee. Kindly consider the same. We also had submitted Copy of Audited Balance Sheet and Copy of ITR along with our reply which is electronically filed on 17.01.2023 having acknowledgement

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

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

disallowed Deduction under Section 80P and have considered the Business income into Other Sources which against the Basic Principles of Classification based on the Nature of Business of the Assessee. Kindly consider the same. We also had submitted Copy of Audited Balance Sheet and Copy of ITR along with our reply which is electronically filed on 17.01.2023 having acknowledgement

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

disallowed Deduction under Section 80P and have considered the Business income into Other Sources which against the Basic Principles of Classification based on the Nature of Business of the Assessee. Kindly consider the same. We also had submitted Copy of Audited Balance Sheet and Copy of ITR along with our reply which is electronically filed on 17.01.2023 having acknowledgement

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

disallowed Deduction under Section 80P and have considered the Business income into Other Sources which against the Basic Principles of Classification based on the Nature of Business of the Assessee. Kindly consider the same. We also had submitted Copy of Audited Balance Sheet and Copy of ITR along with our reply which is electronically filed on 17.01.2023 having acknowledgement

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, BSNL RTTC BUILDING vs. THE WARDHA DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance was intimated to the appellant by way of issuing show, cause notice to provide a fair opportunity to explain his position on the proposed additions/disallowances in accordance with the principle of natural justice

M/S NAGPUR VIDYAPEETH KARAMCHARI SAHAKARI PRATAYA SANSTHA MARYADIT ,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIAPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NAGPUR

The appeals of the appellant are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 133/Nag/2019 आयकर िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 M/S Nagpur Vidyapeeth Karamachari Sahakari Prataya Sanstha Maryadit Lit Premises, Bharati Nagar, Nagpur – 440 001(Mh) Pan : Aaban 0404 H . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Nagpur – 440 001 (Mh) . . . . . . . ""यथ" / Respondent }Kjk / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Mahavir Atal Revenue By : Shri Vithal Bhosale सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 16/02/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull, Am; The Present Appeal Against The Revisionary Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nagpur [For Short “Pcit”] Dt. 19/03/2019 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Leapt Out Of Regular Order Of Assessment Dt. 12/08/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer-Ward-1(4), Nagpur [For Shot “Ao”], The Appellant Assessee Filed Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [For Short “The Tribunal”] U/S 253. Itat-Nagpur Page 1 Of 9

disallowing the deduction claimed claim u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of receipt of interest income earned from non-members of the appellant society. The assessee disregarded the notice on the pretext that the assessment was ITAT-Nagpur Page 4 of 9 M/s Nagpur Vidyapeeth Karamachari Sahakari Prataya Sanstha Maryadit ITA No. : 133/NAG/2019 & AY : 2014-2015 carried out after due inquiry

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

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

natural justice. 5. Assessee craves leave to add or alter any other ground during or at the time of appeal proceedings. 8. Delay of 29 days in filing this appeal has already been condoned vide Para-6 above. 9. This is a case of levy of penalty of ` 7,78,502, under section 270A

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

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

natural justice. 5. Assessee craves leave to add or alter any other ground during or at the time of appeal proceedings. 8. Delay of 29 days in filing this appeal has already been condoned vide Para-6 above. 9. This is a case of levy of penalty of ` 7,78,502, under section 270A