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

disallowed the difference amount of ` 1,80,000, but also denied the assessee trust complete exemption claimed under the provisions of section 11 of the Act and accordingly brought to tax the entire surplus of trust of ` 5

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

disallowed the difference amount of ` 1,80,000, but also denied the assessee trust complete exemption claimed under the provisions of section 11 of the Act and accordingly brought to tax the entire surplus of trust of ` 5

SATPUDA FOUNDATION,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

disallowing the claim of the assessee u/s 11(2) of the Income Tax; therefore order passed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 4. On the facts and circumstances the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in not considering the circular of CBDT which clearly states delay should be condoned; therefore without considering the circular order passed

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

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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU AJAY SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the A

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

11,21,570. The Assessing Officer concluded the assessment and the order was passed under section 143(3) of the Act on 06/03/2014, determining total income of ` 1,17,70,744. Thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 29/09/2015, which was duly served upon the assessee. The assessee filed a letter on 07/10/2015, stating that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU AJAY SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the A

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

11,21,570. The Assessing Officer concluded the assessment and the order was passed under section 143(3) of the Act on 06/03/2014, determining total income of ` 1,17,70,744. Thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 29/09/2015, which was duly served upon the assessee. The assessee filed a letter on 07/10/2015, stating that

SUNIL VISHAMBARNATH TIWARI,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari, Vs. I.T.O. 87, Panchvati Builders, Hindustan Ward 1(4), Colony, Wardha Road, Nagpur- Nagpur. 440015. Pan No.: Aalpt 0719 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale (Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2021 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Nagpur Dated 30/05/2014 For The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Endorsing The View Taken By The A.O. Of Disallowing Claim Of The Assessee. 3. Assessee Craves Leave To Add & Alter Any Other Ground That May Be Taken At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. In This Appeal, There Is Delay Of 363 Days In Filing The Present Appeal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condoning The Delay & The Contents Of The Same Are As Under:

disallowance of exemption under section 11, as the assessee trust belated filed return of income under section 139(4). (Section stipulates filing of return under section 139(1) for exercising an option u/s 11(1). Para 5

M/S. FORMS,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

SUPRIYA PACKAGING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

KAMLESH SINGH THAKUR,NAGPUR vs. ITO, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

M/S. KABRA ENGINEERING,CHANDRAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

SADHNA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

JAIKA VEHICLE TRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

NEELAM RAKESH SINGH,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANLORE

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

SHANTI ARMS TECH PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

SUPRIYA PACKAGING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April