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

disallowance of exemption should have been made in light of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with section 13(3) of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 13 of the Act are reproduced below. Section 13 (1) Nothing contained in section 11 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year

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

disallowance of exemption should have been made in light of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with section 13(3) of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 13 of the Act are reproduced below. Section 13 (1) Nothing contained in section 11 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year

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

disallowance of exemption available u/s 11 of the Act is that the condition laid u/s 12A(1)(b) of the Act is not met. As per the said condition laid u/s 12A(1)(b) of the Act, the assessee is required to file the audit report under section

C-DET EXPLOSIVE INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2,, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue (ITA/42/2020) is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowance u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act could be made in the instant case. 8.3. We find that there is no provision in section 35(1)(ii) of the Act to withdraw the recognition granted to the assessee therein. When there is no provision for withdrawal of recognition in the Act, the action of the revenue in withdrawing

C-DET EXPLOSIVE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ,NAGPUR vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue (ITA/42/2020) is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowance u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act could be made in the instant case. 8.3. We find that there is no provision in section 35(1)(ii) of the Act to withdraw the recognition granted to the assessee therein. When there is no provision for withdrawal of recognition in the Act, the action of the revenue in withdrawing

C-DET EXPLOSIVE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ,NAGPUR vs. D.C.I.T, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue (ITA/42/2020) is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

disallowance u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act could be made in the instant case. 8.3. We find that there is no provision in section 35(1)(ii) of the Act to withdraw the recognition granted to the assessee therein. When there is no provision for withdrawal of recognition in the Act, the action of the revenue in withdrawing

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

disallow the deemed application of income claimed u/s 11(2) amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- as the assessee has failed to furnish the statement in Form No.10 by due date u/s 139(1) for the A.Y. 2017-18." With respect to its above observations, the Appellant has referred to the CBDT circulars pertaining to the condonation of delay

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

SANT SHANKAR MAHARAJ AASHRAM ,AMRAVATI vs. DCIT ACIT CIR-EXEMP, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act is reproduced from Paper Book Page–58 & 59:– Para–A Adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) Amount in ` as Sl. Error In Income Tax Schedule Variance No. Description Return computed The details provided at sr. Part–A General no.A/9 of 1. 88894509 0 88894509 Information Schedule Part– A General are not matching Sant

MANAV SEVA LOK KALYAN MAHASANGH,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE EXEMPTIOM, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roymanav Seva Lok Kalyan Vs Dcit/Acit, Circle Mahasangh, H.No. 32, Teka Exemption, Nagpur Naka, Asi Nagar, Nagpur. Pan : Aabtm 1643 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.03.2026

12A(1)(b) and Rule 17B, trusts are obliged to file Form 10B not later than the specified date mentioned in section 44AB of the Act, which is one month before the due date for submitting the income tax return u/s. 139(1) of the Act and there was a delay of one month in filing Form 10B”. Aggrieved

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. MS GONDWANA ENGINEERS LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance u/s.36(i)(va). 2. Any other grounds and fact to be raised at the time of hearing with the permission of Hon'ble ITAT.” 2 M/s. Gondwana Engineers Ltd. ITA no.387/Nag./2024 3. The tax effect is only ` 1,91,350, as against limit of ` 60 lakh. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that there is a Revenue Audit Objection

HERD EDUCATIONAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(3), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2023-24

disallowed by the CPC vide order dated 18.11.2024 u/s 143(1) of the Act, which was subsequently affirmed by the Ld. Commissioner vide order dated 20.01.2025 u/s 154 of the Act. 2 M/s. Herd Educational & Medical Research Foundation 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said disallowance/addition and/or aforesaid intimation/order by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner

GAURISHANKAR SEWA SAMITI ,NANDURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

1) Learned CIT(A) erred in disallowing the Assessee's Appeal.\n2) Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the A.O.'s order without any basis.\n3) Learned A.O. erred in disallowing/not allowing the deduction amounting to\nRs.5,81,55,514/-.\n4) Learned CIT(A) erred in not properly considered Assessee's Written\nSubmission/Statement of Facts and he has not applying