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

17- 01-2023 and notice 143(2) was issued vide notice dated 31-01-2023. On verification of information filed by the assessee, it is noticed that a claim for deduction u/s 80P was made by the assessee of Rs. 53,72,108/- in the return. 5 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 a) The claim made

DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act 6.1 During the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant furnished copy of the order of the earlier CIT(A) on identical issue, dated 05.06.2023 for the AY 2017-18 in appellant's own case, allowing the claim made u/s 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act by holding that

DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act 6.1 During the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant furnished copy of the order of the earlier CIT(A) on identical issue, dated 05.06.2023 for the AY 2017-18 in appellant's own case, allowing the claim made u/s 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act by holding that

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

17-\n01-2023 and notice 143(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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU AJAY SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the A

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

D E R PER BENCH The instant appeals have been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned orders of even date 22/12/2017, for A.Y. 2012–13 and order dated 29/11/2019, for the A.Y. 2014–15, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year Smt. Anju Ajay Saraf ITA no.30/Nag./2018

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU AJAY SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the A

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

D E R PER BENCH The instant appeals have been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned orders of even date 22/12/2017, for A.Y. 2012–13 and order dated 29/11/2019, for the A.Y. 2014–15, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year Smt. Anju Ajay Saraf ITA no.30/Nag./2018

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2 (1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

disallowance of exemption should have been made in light of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with section 13(3) of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 13 of the Act are reproduced below. Section 13 (1) Nothing contained in section 11 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

disallowance of exemption should have been made in light of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with section 13(3) of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 13 of the Act are reproduced below. Section 13 (1) Nothing contained in section 11 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

disallowance of exemption should have been made in light of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with section 13(3) of the Act. The relevant provisions of section 13 of the Act are reproduced below. Section 13 (1) Nothing contained in section 11 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year

WAGHMARE FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

GREAT SHERLOCK EFMS PVT.LTD.,3, SUYOG, RING ROAD, TRIMURTI NAGAR, NAGPUR 440022 vs. CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGALURU, 1ST FLOOR, PRESTIGE ALPHA, 48/1, 48/2, HOSUR ROAD, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA 560100

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

M/S. TRUFORM ENGINEERS,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

KAMLESH SINGH THAKUR,NAGPUR vs. ITO, NAGPUR

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

SUPRIYA PACKAGING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

SUPRIYA PACKAGING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, NAGPUR

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

M/S AKAY UDYOG,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

PRADEEP KUNDU,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

INTEGRITY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the aforesaid appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April