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

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

disallowance under section 14A at ₹ 15,75,789, though the assessee is not liable for the same. Being aggrieved the assessee

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCEL-1(2, NAGPUR vs. M/S. VIBRANT GLOBAL CAPITAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act and disallowance of amount written-off, etc. The appeal filed by assessee has been

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,RAIPUR (CG), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S SARDA ENERGY & MINERALS LTD , NAGPUR

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 14A of the Act are the issues raised in the scrutiny assessment. At the end of the assessment, the Assessing Officer made the following additions :- “4. Subject to the above remarks, total income of the assessee company is computed as under :- Income as per return of income Rs. 39,92,030/- Add: (1) Disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,RAIPUR (CG), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S SARDA ENERGY & MINERALS LTD , NAGPUR

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 14A of the Act are the issues raised in the scrutiny assessment. At the end of the assessment, the Assessing Officer made the following additions :- “4. Subject to the above remarks, total income of the assessee company is computed as under :- Income as per return of income Rs. 39,92,030/- Add: (1) Disallowance

SHRIRAM DADAJI MATTE,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for business investment made by the assessee on purchase

SHRIRAM DADAJI MATTE,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for business investment made by the assessee on purchase

SHRI DNYANDEO NINU PATIL,AKOLA vs. THE DY. CIT- AKOLA CIRCLE,, AKOLA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as cross appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act in the respective grounds raised by the assessee as well as by the Revenue. 6. The ld. counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the facts and submitted that this is case where the assessee never earned exempt income thereby requirement of invoking the provisions of section

ACIT, AKOLA CIRCLE,, AKOLA vs. SHRI DNYANDEO NINU PATIL,, AKOLA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as cross appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) r.w.s. 14A of the Act in the respective grounds raised by the assessee as well as by the Revenue. 6. The ld. counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the facts and submitted that this is case where the assessee never earned exempt income thereby requirement of invoking the provisions of section

SHRI PRAMOD V MUNDRA ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1(1) , NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.12/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Pramod V. Mundra, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), 602, 6Th Floor, Kalyani Nagpur. Apartment, 108, Farmland, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur- 440010. Pan : Abcpm2572L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri G. J. Ninawe Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] Learned C.I.T.(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made By A.O. U/S.L4A Amounting To Rs. 15,69,653/-. 2] Learned C.I.T.(A) Erred In Not Properly Considering Assessee’S Various Submissions & Relevant Documents Filed At The Time Of Hearing. 3] Learned C.I.T.(A) Erred In Not Properly Applying Her Mind & Only Rely On What The A.O. Say. 4] Assessee Crave To Urge Additional Grounds At The Time Of Hearing If Necessary.” 3. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are As Under :

section 14A of the Act. Delhi High Court held that the said expression envisages that there should be an actual receipt of income which is not includible in the total income during the relevant 4 previous year for the purpose of disallowing

SHRI PADMESH GUPTA,NAGPUR vs. ACITCENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Section 14A and making disallowance of expenses of Rs.4,26,086/- in nature of interest on loan, deprecation on fixed

BAJAJ EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. THE DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 2(3), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance made by invoking Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is unjustified and unreasonable. (3) That the learned Assessing

JAMNALAL SONS PVT. LTD.,,WARDHA vs. CIT-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Section 14A of the Act, the expenditure of Rs.90,28,511/- being 87.54% of the total expenditure of Rs.1,03,13,584/- is not allowable. Therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer dated 10.05.2006 not disallowing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S. FUELCO COAL INDIA LTD., NAGPUR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowed Rs 11,30,384/- under section 14A of the Act. There is no adverse comment made by the AO in this

ITO, WARD- 4 (1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI SWAPNIL ANIL AHIRKAR, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

disallowance under section 14A(3) on account of cash payment of ` 12 lakh each in respect of land in Khasra

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. M/S CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPRATIVE BANK LIMTED , CHANDRAPUR

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

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

14A of the Act was prescribed to the assessee, the assessee has preferred an appeal in this Court under Section 260A of the Act which has also been admitted and substantial question of law framed. This itself shows that the issue is debatable. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in the present

ACIT, CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. CHANDRAPUR DISTT. CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD , CHANDRAPUR

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

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

14A of the Act was prescribed to the assessee, the assessee has preferred an appeal in this Court under Section 260A of the Act which has also been admitted and substantial question of law framed. This itself shows that the issue is debatable. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in the present

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI & CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE, AMRAVATI vs. CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD., CHANDRAPUR

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

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

14A of the Act was prescribed to the assessee, the assessee has preferred an appeal in this Court under Section 260A of the Act which has also been admitted and substantial question of law framed. This itself shows that the issue is debatable. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in the present