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

142(1) and section 148, the returns were indeed non-est and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before the completion of the assessment. 12. There is yet another aspect of the mater. The requirement of making the claim for deduction in a return of income filed by the assessee

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

142(1) and section 148, the returns were indeed non-est and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before the completion of the assessment. 12. There is yet another aspect of the mater. The requirement of making the claim for deduction in a return of income filed by the assessee

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

142(1) and section 148, the returns were indeed non-est and could not have been acted upon by the Assessing Officer even though they were filed before the completion of the assessment. 12. There is yet another aspect of the mater. The requirement of making the claim for deduction in a return of income filed by the assessee

THE GREEN CITY NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of deduction claimed U/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, it is the humble request from the assessee society accept the appeal and allow the deduction. 8. That the learned CIT(A) (NFAC) has erred in law and the act was not justified in proceeding with confirming the addition made by the learned assessing

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

2) was issued vide notice dated 31-01-2023. On\nverification of information filed by the assessee, it is noticed that a claim for\ndeduction u/s 80P was made by the assessee of Rs. 53,72,108/- in the return.\na) The claim made by the assessee is not allowable u/s 80AC. Section 80 AC\n(ii) specifies that \"Deduction

LATE INDIRA GANDHI NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT PURWATHA SANSTHA MARYADIT,AKOLA vs. ITO, WARD-2, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

disallowing the deduction of 4452374/- claimed u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) and also u/s 80(2)(d) of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. The appellant request you to allow the deduction of Rs. 4452374/- claimed u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). 6. Without prejudice to the above, the authorities below have also

INCOME TAX OFFICER, YAVATMAL vs. YAVATMAL DIST. CO-OP. BANK EMPLOYEE CO-OP. PAT SANSTHA LTD., YAVATMAL

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue’s is dismissed

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

2) dated 14/06/2021 is issued. Subsequently a notice dated 17/11/2021 under section 142(1) of the Act was issued calling for details / information relevant to the issue. The assessee submitted its reply and other details. However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that during the course of assessment proceedings, interest income received ` 66,24,574, from investment with from

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer 3[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief

DCIT-CC-1(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. R.B.S.D. AND F.N. DAS(EXPORT FIRM), VIZIANAGRAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

2) and 142(1) were issued which were duly replied by the assessee. In the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) the AO has made following additions which are in dispute in appeal before your honour 4 R.B.S.D. And F.N. Das Export Firm ITA no.234/Nag./2023 a) Unexplained expenditure Rs. 13,22,460/- b) Repairs & Maintenance to Building

UTKARSH NAGPUR Z P PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT NAGPUR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

2) and 142(1) of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee to examine the above issues, filed details / documents which were considered by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) r/w section 144B of the Act 3 Bhagyashri Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit ITA no.374/Nag./2023 on 20/04/2021 by accepting

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

2,81,33,000/- included in the Work-in-progress of Rs. 15,64,07,053/- shown in the P&L account. (iv) verification of disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act." 11. We find that the issues on which re–assessment order was passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act and the issues on which

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

2,81,33,000/- included in the Work-in-progress of Rs. 15,64,07,053/- shown in the P&L account. (iv) verification of disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act." 11. We find that the issues on which re–assessment order was passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act and the issues on which

M/S. JAIKA AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. ,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMIISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Jaika Automobiles & Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Nagpur. Finance Pvt. Ltd., Jaika Building, Commercial Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur- 440001. Pan : Aaacj3178K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.267/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore. Ltd., Jaika Building, Commercial Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur- 440001. Pan : Aaacj4462A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K. P. Dewani Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’) Dated 15.03.2022 & 23.12.2021 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.267/Nag/2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Are Stated Herein.

142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iv) disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account

M/S. JAIKA AUTOMOBILES AND FINANCE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Jaika Automobiles & Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Nagpur. Finance Pvt. Ltd., Jaika Building, Commercial Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur- 440001. Pan : Aaacj3178K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.267/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Cpc, Bangalore. Ltd., Jaika Building, Commercial Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur- 440001. Pan : Aaacj4462A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K. P. Dewani Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’) Dated 15.03.2022 & 23.12.2021 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.267/Nag/2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Are Stated Herein.

142, such return shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— (a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:— (ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iv) disallowance of expenditure or increase in income indicated in the audit report but not taken into account

VIRAMBHAI HARGOVANBHAI PATEL,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance made in respect of difference in fair market value and sale consideration being only 11.46%, which is nominal in this line of business, therefore, addition confirmed U/s. 56(2)(x) at Rs.3,56,100/- is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre

M/S. NEERI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

142 days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. We now proceed to dispose off the appeal on merit. 5. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is an Employee’s Co–operative Credit Society for the employees working at National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI). For the year under consideration, the assessee Society filed its return

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

disallowance of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act was directed to be deleted. The relevant portion of the findings of the learned CIT(A), vide Page-14 to 38, of the impugned order are hereby reproduced herein below for ready reference:-\"7\nGround Nos. 2 To 9 : The appellant has challenged the addition made

RAVINDRA KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE AKOLA , 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

142(1) dated 16 January 2019 as annexure C.2 Notice under section 143(3) dated 28 June 2019 as annexure C.3 Notice under section 143(2) dated 29 September 2019 as annexure C.4 7 Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal ITA no.403/Nag./2023 Show cause notice dated 29 November 2019 as annexure C.5 1.5 We most humbly wish to submit that