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

disallowing the benefit of Sec 80P of Rs.53,72,108/- based on the same, even 2 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 after the return was filed within Assessment Proceeding as on 17.01.2023 bearing Ack No. 923756621170123 which is acknowledged in the Assessment Order itself. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in law and facts

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

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

disallowing the benefit of Sec 80P of Rs.53,72,108/- based on the same, even after the return was filed within Assessment Proceeding as on 17.01.2023 bearing Ack No. 923756621170123 which is acknowledged in the Assessment Order itself. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in law and facts in confirming addition made by Learned AO to the Income

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

section 68 only sets up a presumption against the assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of account of the assessee. It cannot but be again said that the presumption is rebuttable. In refuting the presumption raised, the initial burden is on the assessee. This burden, which is placed on the assessee, shifts as soon as the assessee

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 scrutiny assessment order regarding the investments made by M/s Saphire Marketing Pvt Ltd in the shares of various companies. In fact, the sale of shares held as investment by M/s Saphire Marketing Pvt Ltd and its investment

NARAYAN BHAGYACHANDRA KHATRI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Narayan Bhagyachandra Khatri Acit, Amravati Circle, Amravati Flat No. Sp-2/102, Streling Springdale Vs Aayakarbhavan, Near Dps School, Apartment, Raj Nagar, Nagpur, Saturna, Amravati, Maharashtra – 440013. Maharashtra – 440006. [Pan: Aaccg4441J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, New Delhi dated 10.07.2024 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017–18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. THAT considering the facts of the case, the learned AO erred in rejecting

FATTESING PUNAJI DHABRE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX – 2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

198 TTJ 0310 (Visakha)” 7. On the other hand, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Departmental Representative (ld. CIT–DR) for the Revenue, on the plea of condonation of delay would submit that assessee has not explained the delay properly. The assessee is relying upon self–serving story and delay may not be condoned. On the admission of additional ground

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

198 at 203) (SC); Ellerman Lines Ltd versus CIT (82 ITR 913 at 920-1) (SC); K.P. Varghese (131 ITR 597); and UCO Bank versus CIT (237 ITR 89) (SC). The aforesaid amendment carried out by the Finance Act, 2015 to section 2(24) of the Act is applicable prospectively from Assessment Year 2016-17 and onwards. Based

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

198 at 203) (SC); Ellerman Lines Ltd versus CIT (82 ITR 913 at 920-1) (SC); K.P. Varghese (131 ITR 597); and UCO Bank versus CIT (237 ITR 89) (SC). The aforesaid amendment carried out by the Finance Act, 2015 to section 2(24) of the Act is applicable prospectively from Assessment Year 2016-17 and onwards. Based