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

section 139." Where as under the light of Sec 80AC, deductions under Chapter under the heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes are disallowed on or after 01st April, 2018. Period under appeal is prior to April 2018 which clearly state that the Learned Assessing Officers Application of 80AC (ii) is futile in this case

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

section 139." Where as under the light of Sec 80AC, deductions under Chapter under the heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes are disallowed on or after 01st April, 2018. Period under appeal is prior to April 2018 which clearly state that the Learned Assessing Officers Application of 80AC (ii) is futile in this case

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

section 139." Where as under the light of Sec 80AC, deductions under Chapter under the heading "C.-Deductions in respect of certain incomes are disallowed on or after 01st April, 2018. Period under appeal is prior to April 2018 which clearly state that the Learned Assessing Officers Application of 80AC (ii) is futile in this case

TERRA INFRA DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

138, was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Depreciation was disallowed to the extent of ` 3,05,044. As the assessee has under reported the income, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act is initiated separately. 6. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) in its order vide Para–9, has noted that the amount

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

section 68 is clear. The Legislature has laid down\nthat in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash\ncredit may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of\nthat previous year. In this, case the legislative mandate is not in terms\nof the words \"shall be charged to income-tax as the income

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 69 has held that in creating the legal fiction the phraseology employs the word \"may\" and not \"shall\". Thus the unsatisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case

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

disallowance is rightly made by the AO and is upheld. The deduction claimed is thus not found proper, or even properly explained, and the action of the AO is not faulted. Hence the addition made by the AO of Rs2,77,22,160/- is held as justified and legally valid. Ground no. 4 is dismissed. 10.0 Ground no.6 pertains

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

disallowance is rightly made by the AO and is upheld. The deduction claimed is thus not found proper, or even properly explained, and the action of the AO is not faulted. Hence the addition made by the AO of Rs2,77,22,160/- is held as justified and legally valid. Ground no. 4 is dismissed. 10.0 Ground no.6 pertains

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

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” In that view of the matter, the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall have to be excluded for the purposes of limitation

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

disallowed. 4.9 This jurisprudence was further explained in the recent judgment of the Jaipur Tribunal in case of Shri Kailash Chand Soni V/s ACIT (ITA NO.960/JP/2019) where in it was held that- “Para 14 :- We are of the view that it is not necessary that the expenditure incurred must have been obligatory; it is enough to show that the money

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 69.\nFurther, we may point out that section 68 under which the addition has\nbeen made by the Assessing Officer reads as under:\n\"68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee\nmaintained for any previous year. and the assessee offers no\nexplanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation\noffered

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

section 69.\nFurther, we may point out that section 68 under which the addition has\nbeen made by the Assessing Officer reads as under:\n\"68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee\nmaintained for any previous year. and the assessee offers no\nexplanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation\noffered

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

disallowance of Rs. 3,10,478/-, which was made with respect to\ninterest and when the same has been confirmed by the ITAT, it cannot be said\nthat ITAT has committed any error and/or illegality, which calls for the\ninterference of this Court.\nIn paragraph 11, ITAT has observed and held as under:\n\"We have heard the rival submissions

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

section 69.\nFurther, we may point out that section 68 under which the addition has\nbeen made by the Assessing Officer reads as under:\n\"68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee\nmaintained for any previous year. and the assessee offers no\nexplanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation\noffered

SUNRISE STRUCTURALS & ENGINEERING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roysunrise Structural & Acit/Dcit, Circle-4, Engineering P. Ltd., A10, Vs Nagpur Hingna Midc, Nagpur (Urban), Nagpur-440016 Pan : Aaccs 3220 M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R

138) [Vol.- III] 3. Ground No.2 to 7: Addition Rs.6,77,58,435/- u/s 69C of I.T. Act 1961 is respect of purchases recorded in books of account. A) Regular books of account maintained duly audited by Chartered Accountants. Tax Audit Report submitted with return of income. Books of accounts accepted - not rejected. B) During assessment proceedings following details

CHANDRAKUMAR MADHUSUDANJI JAJODIA,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of interest at ` 1,99,520. 9. Before us the learned Counsel, Shri Kishore P. Dewani, Advocate, appearing for the assessee submitted that in the first appellate order, the learned CIT(A) did not considered and/or given one single reason as to why the submissions of the assessee have not been accepted. The learned Counsel submitted that the confirmation

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 68 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961. Further, the AO did not find the explanation offered by the assessee\nsatisfactory and stated that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus\ntowards explaining the credit of Rs.15,00,000/-. We respectfully object to the\nabove observations and allegations made by the AO as the same are based on\nconjectures

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

138 DTR 0361 (Kol. ITAT) Dutta Automobiles (P) Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. 11] Judgment of Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench “D” Mumbai, dated 29/01/2024 vide ITA No. 2117/Mum/ 2023 in case of Income Tax Officer vrs. M/s Raj Maitry & Eskon Developer. 7. We have perused the matter very thoroughly. It is pertinent to reproduce