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

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

ASSTT.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

ASSTT.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, 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

NIRMALKUMAR AGRAWAL HUF,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHANDARA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

133(6) failed to share his reproduced. view in respect of the conclusion Pg.20, Para above bank drawn by him extract erroneously without • Hence, to verify the any basis. contention of the assessee HUF, I have thoroughly examined the bank account (over draft) No.50200008135124 of M/s. Navdurga Advisory Pvt. Ltd. (NAPL) maintained with HDFC Bank, Shankar Nagar, Nagpur and found

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

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

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

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1(3), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act was made in AY 2017-18. 3.2 Aggrieved assessee carried these matters in separate appeals before first appellate authority u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. While dealing with assessee’s appeals the Ld. CIT(A) provided as much as five to eight opportunities commencing from 04/06/2018 to 01/10/2021 however, the assessee

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act was made in AY 2017-18. 3.2 Aggrieved assessee carried these matters in separate appeals before first appellate authority u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. While dealing with assessee’s appeals the Ld. CIT(A) provided as much as five to eight opportunities commencing from 04/06/2018 to 01/10/2021 however, the assessee

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS, NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act was made in AY 2017-18. 3.2 Aggrieved assessee carried these matters in separate appeals before first appellate authority u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. While dealing with assessee’s appeals the Ld. CIT(A) provided as much as five to eight opportunities commencing from 04/06/2018 to 01/10/2021 however, the assessee

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act was made in AY 2017-18. 3.2 Aggrieved assessee carried these matters in separate appeals before first appellate authority u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. While dealing with assessee’s appeals the Ld. CIT(A) provided as much as five to eight opportunities commencing from 04/06/2018 to 01/10/2021 however, the assessee

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTREAL CIRCEL-1(3), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act was made in AY 2017-18. 3.2 Aggrieved assessee carried these matters in separate appeals before first appellate authority u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. While dealing with assessee’s appeals the Ld. CIT(A) provided as much as five to eight opportunities commencing from 04/06/2018 to 01/10/2021 however, the assessee

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act was made in AY 2017-18. 3.2 Aggrieved assessee carried these matters in separate appeals before first appellate authority u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. While dealing with assessee’s appeals the Ld. CIT(A) provided as much as five to eight opportunities commencing from 04/06/2018 to 01/10/2021 however, the assessee

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