SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

234B of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is improper. (5) That for any other grounds with kind permission of your honour at the time of hearing of appeal.” Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is required. Grounds no.2 & 3, relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission on turnover

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

234B of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is\nimproper.\n(5) That for any other grounds with kind permission of your honour at the\ntime of hearing of appeal.”\n3. Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is\nrequired.\n4. Grounds no.2 & 3, relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer\non account

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

234B of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is\nimproper.\n(5) That for any other grounds with kind permission of your honour at the\ntime of hearing of appeal.”\n\n3. Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is\nrequired.\n\n4. Grounds no.2 & 3, relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

234B of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is\nimproper.\n(5) That for any other grounds with kind permission of your honour at the\ntime of hearing of appeal.”\n\n3. Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is\nrequired.\n\n4. Grounds no.2 & 3, relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

234B of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is\nimproper.\n(5) That for any other grounds with kind permission of your honour at the\ntime of hearing of appeal.”\n3.\nGround no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is\nrequired.\n4. Grounds no.2 & 3, relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer\non account

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

234B of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is\nimproper.\n(5) That for any other grounds with kind permission of your honour at the\ntime of hearing of appeal.”\n3.\nGround no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is\nrequired.\n4.\nGrounds no.2 & 3, relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer\non account

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 assessee for deduction under section 54F of the Act against the capital gain on transfer of long term capital asset, on the ground that the assessee owned interest in more than one residential properties and therefore, he was not entitled for deduction under section 54F of the Act. The learned assessing officer relied

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

3 Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery Kamgar Sahakari Pat Sanstha A.Y. 2018–19 and 2020–21 Sr. Deduction claimed u/s Amount no. i) Under section 80P(2)(a)(i) ` 47,20,046 ii) Under section 80P(2)(c)(i) ` 50,000 ` 90,30,908 iii) Under section 80P(2)(d) 5. The assessee–society revised its claim of deduction under section

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

3 Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery Kamgar Sahakari Pat Sanstha A.Y. 2018–19 and 2020–21 Sr. Deduction claimed u/s Amount no. i) Under section 80P(2)(a)(i) ` 47,20,046 ii) Under section 80P(2)(c)(i) ` 50,000 ` 90,30,908 iii) Under section 80P(2)(d) 5. The assessee–society revised its claim of deduction under section

UTKARSH NAGPUR Z P PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT NAGPUR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

234B and 234C of IT Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 2340 and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive 6. Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 3. Facts of the case are, the assessee is a registered Employees Credit Co– operative Society. The main object

RAGHAV AGRITECH,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowable u/s 40(a)(ia) r.w.s 194C of the act. On the facts of the case, the expenditure has been capitalised and has not been claimed as revenue expenditure and hence no TDS is required to be deducted. 6. That the Ld. AddI/JCIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of interest u/s 234A, 234b and 234C

SIMA RAVISINGH KACHHAWAH,UMRER vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadalesima Ravisingh Kachhawah, Girad Road, Om Nagar Umrer, ……………. Appellant Nagpur- 441203 Maharastra, Pan – Aqmpk2899K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

3 Sima Ravisingh Kachhawah ITA no.418/NAG./2025 verification, and in addition of Rs. 76,500/- by disallowing the deduction claimed under Section 80C, which was duly disclosed in the return of income. The addition confirmed by the CIT(A) NFAC in the absence of any supporting documents is therefore is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 9. On the facts

DOCTOR PUNJABRAO DESHMUKH KRUSHI VIDYAPEETH KARAMCHARI PAT SANSTHA MRYAT ,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AKOLA

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

disallowance of deduction as claimed u/s 80P of I.T. Act 1961 in the case of assessee is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 5. The assessee denies liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted

SHRINIWAS NARAYAN GADGONIWAR,CHANDRAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE CHANDRAPUR, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose

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

disallowance of 10% of the expenses made by the Assessing officer. 6. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in affirming the interest levied by the Assessing officer under section 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3

BHARTI MAIND NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,YAVATMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE , NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT, NEW DELHI

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

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

3 and 4, are allowed. 9. Ground no.5, relates to levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act being consequential in nature, hence no separate adjudication is required. 10. Grounds no.1 and 6, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is required. 11. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

BHARTI MAIND NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,YAVATMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT , YAVATMAL

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

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

3 and 4, are allowed. 9. Ground no.5, relates to levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act being consequential in nature, hence no separate adjudication is required. 10. Grounds no.1 and 6, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is required. 11. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year

CHANDRAKUMAR MADHUSUDANJI JAJODIA,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 9. The order passed by CIT(A) is without providing reasonable opportunity of being head and is therefore illegal, invalid and bad in law. 10. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 3. Facts in brief:- In the case of assessee regular assessment

DCIT, CC-2(2), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. ATUL RAMSHARAN GUPTA, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are dismissed

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

disallowing the claim of assessee of exemption u/s. 10(10D) of amount received from Life Insurance Policy and further erred in invoking provisions of section 17(3)(ii) and making addition of Rs. 1,90,89,000/- being amount received on surrender of the Life Insurance Policy assigned to appellant. The learned CIT(A) was justified in allowing the claim