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

disallow exemption of section 11 of I.T. Act merely on the addition of 2 Jaymahakali Shikshan Sanstha A.Y. 2017–18, 2018–19 & 2019–20 Rs.1,80,000/-received on rent, when the it is a violation of 13(1)(c)/13(1)(d

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

disallow exemption of section 11 of I.T. Act merely on the addition of 2 Jaymahakali Shikshan Sanstha A.Y. 2017–18, 2018–19 & 2019–20 Rs.1,80,000/-received on rent, when the it is a violation of 13(1)(c)/13(1)(d

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. These appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even date 09/10/2018, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–1, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2014–15 and 2015–16 respectively. Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank A.Y. 2014–15 & 2015–16 ITA no.7/Nag./2019 Assessee

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. These appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even date 09/10/2018, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–1, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2014–15 and 2015–16 respectively. Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank A.Y. 2014–15 & 2015–16 ITA no.7/Nag./2019 Assessee

ACIT, CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. CHANDRAPUR DISTT. CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD , CHANDRAPUR

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

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

11. As already discussed above, the assessee in the present case is a Co– operative Bank and filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 29/09/2015, disclosing total income at ` 7,45,57,340. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. M/S CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPRATIVE BANK LIMTED , CHANDRAPUR

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

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

11. As already discussed above, the assessee in the present case is a Co– operative Bank and filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 29/09/2015, disclosing total income at ` 7,45,57,340. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI & CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE, AMRAVATI vs. CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD., CHANDRAPUR

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

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

11. As already discussed above, the assessee in the present case is a Co– operative Bank and filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 29/09/2015, disclosing total income at ` 7,45,57,340. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment under section

ACIT, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI vs. CHANDRAPUR DIST CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The Revenue has filed the present appeal challenging the impugned order dated 12/10/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2014–15. 2. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised following grounds:– “1. Whether on facts

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 the exemption u/s 80P. Hence grounds 1,4,5 and 7 are decided against the assessee.” 11 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 4. We are in complete disagreement with the conclusion drawn by the learned CIT(A). He has completely misunderstood the ratio of the cases. Provisions of section 80AC of the Act has been amended

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 the exemption u/s 80P. Hence grounds 1,4,5 and 7 are decided against the assessee.” 11 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 4. We are in complete disagreement with the conclusion drawn by the learned CIT(A). He has completely misunderstood the ratio of the cases. Provisions of section 80AC of the Act has been amended

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 the exemption u/s 80P. Hence grounds 1,4,5 and 7 are decided against the assessee.” 11 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 4. We are in complete disagreement with the conclusion drawn by the learned CIT(A). He has completely misunderstood the ratio of the cases. Provisions of section 80AC of the Act has been amended

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

disallowed even prior to 2018. Relevanit extract of the order is as\nunder:\nThe Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of EBR Enterprises Vs. Union of\nIndia 415 ITR 139 (Bombay), dated 4th June, 2019 has held as under:\nQuote, 5. As per this provision, where the assessee fails to make a claim in his\nreturn of income

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the A

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

D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The captioned appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 26/09/2019, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–1, Nagpur [“learned CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2014–15. 2. The Revenue has raised following grounds:– “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

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

d in this sub-section shall apply where (a) the assessee, 1. owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or 2 (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset