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

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 revision order passed under section 263 of the Act are entirely different. The assessee had filed Paper Books containing documents filed during re– assessment proceedings

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

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 revision order passed under section 263 of the Act are entirely different. The assessee had filed Paper Books containing documents filed during re– assessment proceedings

SIMA RAVISINGH KACHHAWAH,UMRER vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadalesima Ravisingh Kachhawah, Girad Road, Om Nagar Umrer, ……………. Appellant Nagpur- 441203 Maharastra, Pan – Aqmpk2899K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 15.03.2023, without due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in raising an arbitrary and excessive demand of Rs. 9,76,265/-, rendering the assessment order unjustified, unwarranted, and bad in law. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred

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

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned First Appellate Authority was justified in endorsing the addition made under section 68 of Rs.5,20,84,000/-. Specifically in the light of the facts

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

144B in assessee‘s case for A.Y. 2017–18, order dated 27/03/2023; and xvi) Order u/s 155(15) in assessee‘s case for A.Y. 2017–18. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee further placed reliance on the following case laws in support of his arguments:– i) CIT v/s Max India

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

144B of the Act 3 Bhagyashri Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit ITA no.374/Nag./2023 on 20/04/2021 by accepting the returned income. However, the Assessing Officer computed the total income of the assessee at ` 85,78,260, without giving any deduction under Chapter VI–A in the computation sheet. 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) allowed the claim of deduction

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

section 144B of the Act on 20/04/2021 by accepting the returned income and the total income assed by the Assessing Officer was at ` 85,78,260, without giving any deductions under Chapter VI-A in the Computation Sheet. 3 Utkarsh Nagpur Z.P. Prathmik Shikshak Pat Sanstha Maryadit 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) restored the matter to the file

PANJABRAO DESHMUKH NAGARI SAHAKARIPAT SANSTHA MARYADIT BULDANA,BULDANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , KHAMGAON

disallowed the claim for deduction under section 80P, which was upheld by the CIT(A).", "held": "The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, noting that for other assessment years (2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19), the AO found no fault in the assessee's financial statements and books of accounts. Relying on a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, YAVATMAL vs. SHRI AGRASEN NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD., YAVATMAL

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

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

disallowed interest of ` 41,53,490, and concluded the assessment under section 147 r/w 144B of the Act on 25/03/2022

DREAMZ INFRASTRUCTURE ,AMRAVATI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance of donation, etc. The assessee had filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 08/02/2019, declaring total income of ` 3,06,90,610. The assessment for the A.Y. 2018-19 was completed under section 144 r/w section 144AB of the Act wherein addition was made of ` 73,46,24,766. 5. When this appeal was taken

AMRAVATI JILHA VIMA KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal and bad in law; 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in confirmed addition made by the assessing officer at Rs.12,25,000/-, therefore addition made is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; 2 Amravati Jilha Vima Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit ITA no.8/Nag./2024

SANT TUKDOJI NAGRI SHAHKARI PAT SANSTHA LIMITED, HINGANGHAT,HINGANGHAT vs. ITO WARD - 2, WARDHA

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

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

144B of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 4. The income assessed by A.O. at Rs.78,52,056/- is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 5. The addition made by A.O. at Rs.78,52,056/- by denying benefit of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(a) (i) of I.T. Act 1961 is illegal, invalid

SHRI SAIBABA BAHUUDDESHIYA NAGRIK CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD (3)(4), NAGPUR

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed in the aforesaid\ndirections

144B of the Act, has\nmade the addition of Rs. 71,00,105/- being `disallowance on\naccount of deduction' claimed by the Assessee u/sec. 80P(2)(a)(i)\nof the Act and the addition of Rs. 37,77,768/- being 'disallowance of\ndeduction' claimed u/sec. 80P(2)(d) of the Act.\n3. The Assessee being aggrieved, challenged the said additions

NARENDRA RAMCHANDRA DESHPANDE,WARDHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARDHA, WARDHA

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalenarendra Ramdhandra Deshpande Manorama Complex, Sudampuri Arvi Road, Wardha -442 001, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Aazpd4477F V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–1, Wardha, ……………. Respondent Ito, Building, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Amolkalavikatte.A.R. Revenue By :Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

144B and u/sec 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the A.Y. 2020–21. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:– “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing the appellant claim of exemption of rs.56,698/- in respect

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

disallowed in the assessment framed by invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act. It was submitted that there is no merit in the appeal filed by assessee and therefore addition made by the Ld. AO be sustained and upheld. He further submitted that assessee has submitted letter wherein ground as to validity of notice issued

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. AMIT KHARA, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowing the claim of agricultural income of Rs 2,24,94,953/-. Present appeal is against the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. 6. In the meanwhile, the appellant had preferred an appeal against the order u/s 263 of the Act passed by the PCIT dated 16.02.2017 before the Hon'ble ITAT, Nagpur

SUNIL SHATRUGHAN MISHRA,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roysunil Shatrughan Mishra Dcit/Acit, Circle-1, Plot No. 10, House No. 762, Vs Nagpur. Tilak Nagar, Dharampeth Maharashtra-440 010 Pan : Agvpm 8909 M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2026 O R D E R

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 31.03.2022 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that due to non-compliance before the Ld.CIT(A), appeal of the assessee has been dismissed

BAHUBALI NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2019-20

144B of the Act has made the additions of Rs.13,28,835/- on account of income from sale transactions of securities and Rs.75,000/- being disallowance on account of provisions debited to profit & loss account. 3. The Assessee though challenged the aforesaid additions, /disallowances by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, 2 M/s. Bahubali Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha however

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

144B of the Income Tax Act passed is illegal, invalid and bad in law; 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi erred in confirming total addition of Rs.3,56,100/- made by the assessing officer, therefore order passed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive; Virambhai Hargovanbhai Patel