SANJAY SHANKARRAO JADHAO,AMRAVATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2016–17, emanating against the assessment order dated 18/12/2018, passed by the Asstt. CIT, Circle Amravati. 2. During the course of hearing, we find that there is a delay

RAMESH WASUDEORAO NAWSALKAR,AMRAVATI vs. DCIT AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

disallowance of registration charges at ₹ 5,47,250/- incurred by the assessee on the sale of immovable property. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has sold an immovable property to six purchasers, the details of which are placed in paper book at page No.17. He also referred to the registered sale agreement and respective

ANIRUDHA HARIHAR MANDAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), , NAGPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 390/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Anirudha Harihar Mandal 335, New Nandanwan, Nagpur-440009 Pan: Agopm9294J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] by the National Faceless Appellate Centre [‘NFAC’ hereinafter] for assessment year 2020-21 [‘AY’ hereinafter]. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that; 2.1 the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of mining & quarrying and other allied activities. The return of income filed by him declaring total

SHRI SANT NARHARI NAGARI SHAHKAR PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,BHANDRA vs. ITO, WARD -2, BHANDARA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed in part for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Sant Narhari Nagari Ito, Ward-2, Bhandara Shahkar Pat Sanstha Maryadit, R.No. 1/2 Nagar Vs. Palika Shivaji Chowk, Pauni, Bhandra-441910. Pan: Aakts 3987 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 87 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the Assessee has claimed that entire appellate proceedings before the Ld. Commissioner were conducted in a faceless manner and online. Further

ITO, WARD-1(5), NAGPUR vs. M/S. SHREE GANNAYAK BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Sh. G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Sh. Mahavir Singhvs Shree Gannayak Builders & Developers, Ito, Ward–1(5), Room No.502, Plot No.2, Near Global India International School, 5Th Floor, Mecl Bldg., Kalmana Basti, Nagpur–440008. Seminary Hills, Pan–Abrfs9402L Nagpur–440006. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R.K.Baral, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. Manoj Moryani, Adv. Date Of Hearing 07.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2018

5), Nagpur u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) for A.Y. 2013-14 vide his order dated 29.02.2016. 2. The only issue in this appeal of the Revenue is against the order of Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO by holding the expenditure debited by the assessee to the trading account

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 respectively. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 respectively. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 respectively. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 respectively. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–. Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009–10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 respectively. 2. Since all these appeals pertain to the same assessee, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together

DCIT-CC-1(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. R.B.S.D. AND F.N. DAS(EXPORT FIRM), VIZIANAGRAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 44AB of Income Tax Act. The auditor, in its report, has not pointed out any defect in the books of accounts or bills and vouchers maintained by the assessee. In the assessment proceeding, the AO has not disputed the fact that the assessee has maintained regular books of accounts, bills and vouchers. The AO has not rejected assesses books

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT (NAFC)”], for the assessment year 2015-16. Shri Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak vs. ACIT (OSD) ITA no. 368/Nag./2023 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:– “1] Order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON vs. RENUKA OIL INDUSTRIES, KHAMGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts by restricting the disallowances from Rs.1,28,59,961/- to Rs.25,71,992/- (20%) on account of cash expenses claimed by the assessee in respect of labours payment, without any proper supporting documents 6. Any other ground that appellant craves to raise during the course of hearing.” 3. Facts in Brief

M/S. UNIFUES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.419/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S.Unijules Life Sciences The Assistant Ltd., V Commissioner Of Income B 35/36, Midc Kalmehwar, S Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur – 441501. Nagpur. Pan: Aaacu8032D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Nagpur Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 08.11.2021 Emanating From The Order Under Section 153A R.W.S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 Dated 30.03.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : M/S.Unijules Life Sciences Ltd., [A]

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 08.11.2021 emanating from the order under section 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, 1961 dated 30.03.2016. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as under : M/s.Unijules Life Sciences Ltd., [A] “1) The Assessment u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) is illegal, invalid and deserves

KEMA LOGISTICS AND MANUFACTURERS PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.124/Nag/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kema Logistics & The Dcit, Cpc, Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd, Vs Bangalore. 80B, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur. Pan: Aabck 6785 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri G.J.Ninawe – Dr Date Of Hearing 09/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal, (Nfac) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Passed On 02.08.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) The Hon'Ble Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts By Dismissing The Appeal On The Ground That Epf Has Not Been Paid As Appeal Was Filed For Disallowance Of Bonus Payment. 2) The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Law & On Facts By Holding That The Epf Payment Of Rs.9,75,173/- Remained Unpaid Before The Due Date Of Filing Return As The Amount Relates To Unpaid Bonus At The Year-End Which Was Duly Paid By The Appellant Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Income Tax Return. 3) Any Other Ground That May Be Taken At The Time Of Hearing

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2017-18 passed on 02.08.2021. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1) The Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) erred in law and on facts by dismissing the appeal on the ground that EPF has not been paid as appeal was filed for disallowance of bonus payment. 2) The learned

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

5. The learned AO (NFAC) has erred in completing the assessment under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 15.03.2023, without due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and in raising an arbitrary and excessive demand of Rs. 9,76,265/-, rendering the assessment order unjustified, unwarranted

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act was made in AY 2017-18. 3.2 Aggrieved assessee carried these matters in separate appeals before first appellate authority u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. While dealing with assessee’s appeals the Ld. CIT(A) provided as much as five to eight opportunities commencing from 04/06/2018 to 01/10/2021 however, the assessee

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS, NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act was made in AY 2017-18. 3.2 Aggrieved assessee carried these matters in separate appeals before first appellate authority u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. While dealing with assessee’s appeals the Ld. CIT(A) provided as much as five to eight opportunities commencing from 04/06/2018 to 01/10/2021 however, the assessee

M/S. CONCRETE DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1(3), NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act was made in AY 2017-18. 3.2 Aggrieved assessee carried these matters in separate appeals before first appellate authority u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. While dealing with assessee’s appeals the Ld. CIT(A) provided as much as five to eight opportunities commencing from 04/06/2018 to 01/10/2021 however, the assessee