VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and selected for scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer made assessment on total income of ` 50,81,436, by making addition of ` 97,06,79,200, as disallowance

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

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 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 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

M/S TAWARI TRADERS ,BULDHANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2, KHAMGAON

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

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

200 in the instant case), he would still go scot free, without suffering the consequences of such monetary default in spite of specific provisions laying down these consequences. The Punjab & Haryana High Court has exhaustively interpreted Section 40(a(ia) keeping in mind different aspects. We would again quote the following paragraphs from the said judgment, with our complete approval

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

PANKAJ UTTAMCHAND KATARIA ,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD -3, AMRAVATI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.34/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Uttamchand Kataria, Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Amravati. Kataria Agencies, Nawathe Plot, Danwantri, Amravati. Pan : Aibpk3441Q 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 21.12.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, There Is A Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Of 317 Days. The Appellant Filed A Condonation Petition Stating That The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Had Occurred On Account Of The Appellant Pursuing The Alternative Remedy By Filing The Petition U/S 154 & The Order U/S 154 From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Was Received On 02.09.2017. Thereafter, The Counsel Of The Appellant Was Busy In Attending His Father, Who Is Aged About 83

disallowed a sum of Rs.1,57,200/- invoking the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) made

AJAZ AHMAD,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AKOLA

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

section 40A(3) of the Act. In view of the above amount of ` 21,72,200, was disallowed by the Assessing

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 s. 14A was not sustainable. In view of the fact claim made by the assessee is true and correct and same may kindly be allowed.” 7. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties; perused material placed on record and duly considered the facts of the case in the 17 Shri Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani ITA no.410/Nag

NIKITA SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ms. Nikita Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Borpt 4644 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /62022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

200/- and treated the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and charged income tax under section 115BBE of the Act. The learned Counsel submitted that though the provisions of section 69A of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case, but still the Department has charged income tax under section 115BBE

HARSHA SANTOSH TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Harsha Santosh Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar,Pandhuna, Nagpur Pandhurna 480334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Bobpt 5794 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 / 6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Aforesaid Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

200/-, and treated the same as unexplained money 8 Harisha Santosh Tanwani vs ACIT, C.C-2(1), Nagpur under section 69A of the Act and charged income tax under section 115BBE of the Act. The learned Counsel submitted that though the provisions of section 69A of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case, but still

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

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

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

200/-. Applying indexation, the indexed cost of acquisition works out to Rs.30,69,408/- [2131200 X 1023/711]. Accordingly, the long term capital gain works out to Rs.83.89.792/- [11455200 – 3069408]. 7. On perusal of the return of income of the assessee, it is seen that the assessee has shown income from house properties as under; Sr. Address of Property Whether

HARSHA SANTOSH TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Harsha Santosh Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar,Pandhuna, Pandhurna, Nagpur Chhindwara 480334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Bobpt 5794 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Aforesaid Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Thoctober 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

200, and treated the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and charged income tax under section 115BBE of the Act. The learned Counsel submitted that though the provisions of section 69A of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case, but still the Department has charged income tax under section 115BBE

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

VAISHALI ARVIND TAYADE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, AMARAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

section 80C (LIC/PPF) was disallowed. The Assessing Officer has also disallowed the interest paid on borrowed capital amounting to ` 3 Vaishali Arvind Tayade ITA no.374/Nag./2022 78,540, aggregating to the total disallowance of ` 1,22,310. Consequent upon passing of the assessment order by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned

VIVEKANAND AKRUSHAK SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,BHANDRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BHANDRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

disallowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) thereon (tax effect Rs.2,60,528/-). 04. Learned CIT(A) as well as learned AU erred in not appreciating that the investment of funds with banks is very much incidental to and hence attributable to the business of the assessee and hence interest earned 3 Vivekanand Akrushak Sahakari Pat Sanastha Maryadit on such

VIVEKANAND AKRUSHAK SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,BHANDRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BHANDRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

disallowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) thereon (tax effect Rs.2,60,528/-). 04. Learned CIT(A) as well as learned AU erred in not appreciating that the investment of funds with banks is very much incidental to and hence attributable to the business of the assessee and hence interest earned 3 Vivekanand Akrushak Sahakari Pat Sanastha Maryadit on such

VIVEKANAND AKRUSHAK SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT ,BHANDRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WRD-2, BHANDRA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

disallowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) thereon (tax effect Rs.2,60,528/-). 04. Learned CIT(A) as well as learned AU erred in not appreciating that the investment of funds with banks is very much incidental to and hence attributable to the business of the assessee and hence interest earned 3 Vivekanand Akrushak Sahakari Pat Sanastha Maryadit on such