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

section 234A, 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 6. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 3. Grounds no.1 and 6, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is required. 4. Grounds no.2 to 4, relates to disallowance

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

SANT TUKDOJI NAGRI SHAHKARI PAT SANSTHA LIMITED, HINGANGHAT,HINGANGHAT vs. ITO WARD - 2, WARDHA

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

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

disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of I.T. Act 1961 at Rs.78,52,056/-. 8. The learned A.O. ought to have held that assessee is a Credit Co- operative Society eligible for benefit of section u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of I.T. Act 1961 and thus addition made is unjustified and bad in law. 9. The assessee denies

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

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act is hereby disallowed which was added back to the total Income of the assessee–society. The assessee being aggrieved, carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. 7. The learned CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee’s appeal by observing as follows:– “5.1 I have perused the order passed

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

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act is hereby disallowed which was added back to the total Income of the assessee–society. The assessee being aggrieved, carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. 7. The learned CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee’s appeal by observing as follows:– “5.1 I have perused the order passed

VIJAYKUMAR ROOPLALJI JAISWAL,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalevijaykumar Rooplalji Jaiswal, 46, Middle Ring Road, East Wardhaman Nagar, ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440008, Maharashtra. Pan–Abrpj7368Q V/S A.C.I T. Circle–4, ……………. Respondent Nagpur-440001, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.K.P. Dewani, A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

section 234A, 234C and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 5. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the assessee has filed an application

THE MAHABEEJ KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT AKOLA,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

disallowing deduction u/s 80P(2) of I.T. Act 1961 by A.O. and upheld by CIT(A) is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 2 The Mahabeej Karmachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Akola ITA no.322/Nag./2024 3. The learned A.O. and CIT(A) ought to have held that entire income of assessee is eligible for deduction

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

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

234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 9) Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 5. The assessee submitted the following submissions along with the paper book for consideration. 3.1 Ground No.1: Notice u/s 148 of I.T. Act 1961 is not in accordance with law:- A) Notice u/s 148A

ASHOKKUMAR GOKULCHAND SANANDA,BULDHANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royashokkumar Gokulchand Acit, Akola Circle, Akola Sananda, Rana Traders, Vs Gandhi Chowk, Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhan, Khamgaon Pan : Adpps 755I L Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2026

section 2 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 13) Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 3. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee not pressed grounds No. 1 to 5, therefore, same are dismissed as not pressed. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee

NAGPUR DISTRICT SHALA KARMACHARI CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 (4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 6. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset filed the following decisions and submitted that under identical circumstances the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act has been

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

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 was framed

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

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 of the assessee society is accepting deposits from its members and providing credit facilities to its members

RAJESH SARDA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Rajesh Sarda, Acit, Central Circle – 2(2), Nagpur 14, Daga Lay–Out, Ambazari Road, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440033. Maharashtra – 440001. [Pan: Ahaps4925M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 8) Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is proprietor of Lakshya Enterprises engaged in the trading of Iron and Steel, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015– 16 on 30.09.2015 declaring income

NAGPUR DISTRICT SHALA KARMACHARI CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD , NAGPUR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 (4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda

section 234A, 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 6. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset filed the following decisions and submitted that under identical circumstances the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act has been

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified unwarranted and excessive. 6. Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 3. In this case, the assessee is a registered Employee Credit Co-operative Society and engaged in the business of providing credit facilities to its members, filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 24/10/2018

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.

234C. Grounds no.1 raised by the assessee being general in nature, hence, no 3. separate adjudication. The issue arising out of grounds no.2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, relates to returned 4. income shown by the assessee under section 44AD of the Act. Brief facts are, the assessee is engaged in the business of Kirana and 5. general items

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: 2019-20 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 /6 /2022 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 2019-20. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

234C.’’ Grounds no.1, raised by the assessee being general in nature, 3. hence, no separate adjudication. The issue arising out of grounds no.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, relates to 4. returned income shown by the assessee under section 44AD of the Act. 5. Brief facts are, the assessee is engaged in the business of Kirana and general items

ASHA 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 Smt. Asha Shankarlal Tanwani Vs. The Acit 01, Shankar Nagar, Pandhuna Central Circle 2(1) Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Nagpur Pan No.:Bnvpt 1763 J 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. 2. On The Fact & Circumstances Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Income Determined By The Assessing Officer At Rs.15,02,106/- Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

234C. Grounds no.1, raised by the assessee being general in nature, hence, no 3. separate adjudication is required. The issue arising out of grounds no.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, relates to returned 4. income shown by the assessee under section 44AD of the Act. Brief facts are, the assessee is engaged in the retail business in individual 5. capacity