RAVINDRA MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE , AKOLA

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

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

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) requesting specific details about the lenders and the loans. In response to notices under section 142(1) of the Act, the assessee submitted list of lenders, their PAN, address, ledger confirmation of most of the debtors, interest payment details, details of TDS deducted on interest and the TDS returns

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR SINGH ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(1), NAGPUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.96/Nag/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward- 8(1), Nagpur. Hanshu Patel Building, Amravati Road, Wadi, Nagpur- 440023. Pan : Axbps9499K Appellant Respondent Assessee By None : Revenue By : Shri G. J. Ninawe Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2006-07 Arises Against The Cit(A)-2, Nagpur’S Order Dated 21.08.2019 Passed In Case No. Cit(A)-2/141/2013-14, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. The Very Factual Position Existed On All Previous Hearing As Well. He Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte.

section 40(a)(ia) disallowance of Rs.9,22,133/- on account of his failure to deduct TDS on the alleged

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 under section 14A at ` 9,88,570, though the assessee is not liable for the same. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. During the proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made a detailed submission before the CIT(A), which was recorded by the learned CIT(A) in its impugned order

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

disallowed in the subsequent years. The issue of initial year of the industrial unit was subject to litigation in the case of assessee herself and I find that the claim of the appellant has been duly accepted by the appellate authorities. There being no contrary evidence, I hold that the initial assessment year of the new industrial unit

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

disallowed in the subsequent years. The issue of initial year of the industrial unit was subject to litigation in the case of assessee herself and I find that the claim of the appellant has been duly accepted by the appellate authorities. There being no contrary evidence, I hold that the initial assessment year of the new industrial unit

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

disallowed in the subsequent years. The issue of initial year of the industrial unit was subject to litigation in the case of assessee herself and I find that the claim of the appellant has been duly accepted by the appellate authorities. There being no contrary evidence, I hold that the initial assessment year of the new industrial unit

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

disallowed in the subsequent years. The issue of initial year of the industrial unit was subject to litigation in the case of assessee herself and I find that the claim of the appellant has been duly accepted by the appellate authorities. There being no contrary evidence, I hold that the initial assessment year of the new industrial unit

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

disallowed in the subsequent years. The issue of initial year of the industrial unit was subject to litigation in the case of assessee herself and I find that the claim of the appellant has been duly accepted by the appellate authorities. There being no contrary evidence, I hold that the initial assessment year of the new industrial unit

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

disallowed in the subsequent years. The issue of initial year of the industrial unit was subject to litigation in the case of assessee herself and I find that the claim of the appellant has been duly accepted by the appellate authorities. There being no contrary evidence, I hold that the initial assessment year of the new industrial unit

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR vs. M/S UNITED BUILDERS , BHANDARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

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

section 133(6). The Assessing Officer then issued a show cause notice to the assessee on 03/10/2016, who was asked to explain as to why the expenses M/s. United Builders ITA no.56/Nag./2020 debited to Profit & Loss A/c on account of sub-letting the work shall not be disallowed

SUBHASHI YADAORAO CHIMURKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), NAGPUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

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

section(s) 131 r.w.s. 133 hereinabove, the services of all officers and employees of the erstwhile “MSEB” first stood “vested” in the “State Government” of Maharashtra on “Reorganization of the Board”, followed by the transfer to various “transferee” entities in generation, transmission and distribution company(ies) (supra). The same appears to be the most clinching fact herein since all these

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THIRD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. N KUMAR HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, SEVENTH FLOOR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

section 133(6) was never\nissued to Poonam Resort Ltd. and without having received any reply thereto,\nthe Assessing Officer drew conclusion and disallowed

SUBHASH BADRIPRASAD SHAHU,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(3), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesubhash Badriprasad Shahu, Plot No.84, Near Annapurna Dall Mill, Bagad Ganj, Small Factory Area ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 008. Maharashtra. Pan – Agqps9660N V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(3), Nagpur Assessee By :Shri. Abhay Agrawal.A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

disallowance based on suspicions and surmises without considering the documentary evidences filed in support of genuineness of purchases and without doubting the corresponding sales. 5. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned AO erred in neither providing adverse material allegedly received from GST department, nor opportunity of cross-examination of party Shri Sanket Santosh Shahu, thereby breaching principles

SHRI KRUPA UDHYOG,AKOLA vs. DCIT AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). On being pointed out of the difference in amount confirmed vis–a–vis balance per books. The assessee furnished following submissions in support of its claim:– “1. Anis Traders Daryapur wer have purchase bill of amounting to ₹ 23,06,938/- in the last fifteen days of March

I.T.O. WARD -1, AMRAVATI vs. SHRI SANJAY NANASAHEB BHARSAKALE, AMRAVATI

In the result, the appeal of the department is rejected

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

133(6) of I.T. Act 1961. The appellant had paid the VAT tax on the sale of sand and the same is reflected in the copy of VAT audit report filed in the paper book. The appellant also filed the copy of account of Shri Rajesh Hiwase showing the purchases made from Rajesh Hiwase. 5.5.4 During the course of assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

disallowance of such expenditure. 29.2 This used to enable the taxpayer charged to tax under section 69C to claim the expenditure as deduction under section 37 defeating the very objective of the section. 29.3 The Act has amended section 69C of the Income-tax Act according to which unexplained expenditure deemed as income cannot be allowed as deduction under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER , NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

disallowance of such expenditure. 29.2 This used to enable the taxpayer charged to tax under section 69C to claim the expenditure as deduction under section 37 defeating the very objective of the section. 29.3 The Act has amended section 69C of the Income-tax Act according to which unexplained expenditure deemed as income cannot be allowed as deduction under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA RADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

disallowance of such expenditure. 29.2 This used to enable the taxpayer charged to tax under section 69C to claim the expenditure as deduction under section 37 defeating the very objective of the section. 29.3 The Act has amended section 69C of the Income-tax Act according to which unexplained expenditure deemed as income cannot be allowed as deduction under