M/S INDOWORTH INDIA LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), CIRCLE 51(1) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

section 201(3) the Financial Act, 2012. 3. The non–deduction TDS and interest thereon u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) on share application money of Rs.55,89,527/- amounting to Rs.22,45,596/- is incorrect, illegal, bad in law and without natural justice and the same is to be deleted. 4. That the levy of TDS on advance Share

INDOWORTH INDIA LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), CIRCLE 51(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

section 201(3) the Financial Act, 2012. 3. The non–deduction TDS and interest thereon u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) on share application money of Rs.55,89,527/- amounting to Rs.22,45,596/- is incorrect, illegal, bad in law and without natural justice and the same is to be deleted. 4. That the levy of TDS on advance Share

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

201 categorically states that the aforesaid Sections would be without prejudice to any other consequences which that defaulter may incur. Other consequences are provided under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, namely, payments made by such a person to a contractor shall not be treated as deductible expenditure. When read in this context, it is clear that Section

M/S AHUJA BULKS MOVERS PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCAL-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 180/Nag/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Ahuja Bulk Movers Pvt. Ltd. B-307, Lokmat Building, Wardha Road, Nagpur-440 012 Pan : Aabca5014E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri R.K Ganeriwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022

201 of the Act, then, as per the “2nd proviso” to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, no disallowance

GOPAL DENESHCHANDRA TULSHAN ,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AKOLA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

disallowance of interest expenses at Rs. 1,86,667/-, since the appellant has complied with the second proviso of section 40(a)(ia) rws first proviso of sub section (1) of section 201

AHSAAN QURESHI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

disallowed the amount of ` 1 lakh, under section 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") as assessee failed to deduct the TDS as per provisions of section 194H of the Act. The learned CIT(A) held that the in view of the amendment made in section 40a(ia) of the Act and in section 201

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

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

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

Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction. 55. In the light of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the approach of the impugned judgment

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

201 PAN – AAATJ1449G Assessee by : Shri Mahavir Atal Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 28/01/2025 Date of Order – 03/04/2025 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the impugned orders of even date 11/08/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [―learned

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

201 PAN – AAATJ1449G Assessee by : Shri Mahavir Atal Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 28/01/2025 Date of Order – 03/04/2025 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the impugned orders of even date 11/08/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [―learned

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

201 PAN – AAATJ1449G Assessee by : Shri Mahavir Atal Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 28/01/2025 Date of Order – 03/04/2025 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the impugned orders of even date 11/08/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [―learned

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 should be allowed if the appellant had made any provision towards bad and doubtful debts and not necessarily equivalent to the provision made as held by Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in case of Pratima Bank (58 ITR (Trib) 1). 2.2 Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) should have allowed the alternate claim of the appellant that

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 should be allowed if the appellant had made any provision towards bad and doubtful debts and not necessarily equivalent to the provision made as held by Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in case of Pratima Bank (58 ITR (Trib) 1). 2.2 Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) should have allowed the alternate claim of the appellant that

M/S. ICON DRUGS PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. CPC, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD3(4), NAGPUR

201, Saidarshan Complex, ITO, Ward- 3(4), Nagpur. Wardha Road, Vivekanand Nagar, Nagpur- 440015. PAN : AABCI1210L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri R. K. Ganeriwala Revenue by Shri G. J. Ninawe : Date of hearing : 02.11.2022 Date of pronouncement : 27.12.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: These assessee’s twin appeals for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 arise

M/S. ICON DRUGS PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. CPC , INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), NAGPUR

201, Saidarshan Complex, ITO, Ward- 3(4), Nagpur. Wardha Road, Vivekanand Nagar, Nagpur- 440015. PAN : AABCI1210L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri R. K. Ganeriwala Revenue by Shri G. J. Ninawe : Date of hearing : 02.11.2022 Date of pronouncement : 27.12.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: These assessee’s twin appeals for the assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 arise

SHRI SHANKARLAL CHANDUMAL 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 Shankarlal Chandumal Tanwani Vs. The Acit 41, Prop. Shankar Kirana, Tar Bazar, Central Circle 2(1) Main Road,Pandhurna 480334 (M.P.) Nagpur Pan No.:Aiqpt 1252 M 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 Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 7Th 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 2019-20. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal 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.

disallowance of unsubstantiated sundry creditors. Impugned order was liable to be set aside 17 Shankarlal Chandumal Tanwani vs ACIT, CC-2(1, Nagpur Appeal of department allowed. The finding of the said case is quite distinguishable from the Appellant’s case as in the caselaw the additions were made on the basis of discrepancy found in the details submitted

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

disallowed the claim of the appellant under section 54F holding that the appellant owned more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset. Shri Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak vs. ACIT (OSD) ITA no. 368/Nag./2023 a. Kitchen Ota & Plumbing b. Floor Tiles fitting & washing basin in master bedroom toilet c. Approach

NITIN MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - AKOLA, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

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

201 ITR 464 has held that if the dominate purpose for which the expenditure was incurred not to be earn the income, the expenditure incurred in that behalf would fall outside the purview of section 57(iii) of the Act. Where the dominant purpose of the assessee in taking overdrafts was not to earn income but to meet the personal

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

201, 202, 203, 204) [Vol.- III] J) Assessee has made payment to M/s Dadhichi Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. for purchases through proper banking channels (P-145- 146) [Vol- I] no evidence brought on record by A.O to establish that the said payments routed back to assessee. Source of payment from bank account is not disputed. It is not even alleged