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

254 of the Act or Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 250 of the Act. It has also been held in various subsequent case laws that this restriction is not applicable to the appellate authorities and that the appellate authorities can entertain claims made otherwise than by way of return or revised return of income provided the appellate authorities

SNNEHSHILP CONSTRUCTIONS,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(5), NAGPUR

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

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee being aggrieved carried the matter before the first appellate authority. Snnehshilp Constructions ITA no.413/Nag./2023 5. During the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) observed that the assessee claimed TDS on gross contract receipts of ` 3,01,24,661, as against

MAHESHKUMAR BADRIBISHAL BHARTIYA,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1,, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Shri Ajitkumar Badriprasad Bhartiya Dcit, Circle –1 A–704, Anandam World City, Vs Bsnl–Rttc Building, Umred Road, Ganeshopeth, Seminary Hills, Nagpur – 440018. Nagpur – 440001. [Pan: Abbpb0801G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT/ADDL/JCIT(A), Faridabad dated 25.03.2025 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015–16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That the learned Addl/JCIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the order

SHRI AJITKUMAR BADRIPRASAD BHARTIYA,NAGPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Shri Ajitkumar Badriprasad Bhartiya Dcit, Circle –1 A–704, Anandam World City, Vs Bsnl–Rttc Building, Umred Road, Ganeshopeth, Seminary Hills, Nagpur – 440018. Nagpur – 440001. [Pan: Abbpb0801G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT/ADDL/JCIT(A), Faridabad dated 25.03.2025 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015–16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That the learned Addl/JCIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the order

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowance with respect to the sales tax subsidy though claimed as “capital receipt” and deducted from the “total income” offered to tax in the return of income by the Appellant. Needless to add, the AO has dealt with the issue of sales tax subsidy vide paragraph 5 to 5.8. given at page no. 8 to 13 of the assessment order

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowance with respect to the sales tax subsidy though claimed as “capital receipt” and deducted from the “total income” offered to tax in the return of income by the Appellant. Needless to add, the AO has dealt with the issue of sales tax subsidy vide paragraph 5 to 5.8. given at page no. 8 to 13 of the assessment order

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

254 (Gauhati) it has been held that- “Under section 68 of Income Tax Act creditor‟s creditworthiness has to be judged vis-à-vis transactions, which have taken place between assessee and creditor, and it is not business of assessee to find out source of money of his creditor or genuineness of transactions, which took place between creditor

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

254, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur. ……………. Appellant PAN – AAQPN4090H v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, ……………. Respondent (OSD), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri M.G.Moryani, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Rajat Singhai, Sr. DR Date of Hearing – 27/06/2024 Date of Order – 27/06/2024 O R D E R PER K.M.ROY, A.M. The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 18/10/2023, passed

NARAYAN BHAGYACHANDRA KHATRI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Narayan Bhagyachandra Khatri Acit, Amravati Circle, Amravati Flat No. Sp-2/102, Streling Springdale Vs Aayakarbhavan, Near Dps School, Apartment, Raj Nagar, Nagpur, Saturna, Amravati, Maharashtra – 440013. Maharashtra – 440006. [Pan: Aaccg4441J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, New Delhi dated 10.07.2024 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017–18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. THAT considering the facts of the case, the learned AO erred in rejecting

FATTESING PUNAJI DHABRE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX – 2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (in short, the “ld. PCIT") – 2, Nagpur dated 30/03/2021 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances

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

254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) – 3, Nagpur dated 11.02.2022 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015–16. The the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Order passed

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

254 ITR 606 (SC). No adverse evidence brought on record to discredit legal evidence placed on record to demonstrate genuineness of transaction. Addition made is on suspicion and is impermissible. G) To verify similar transaction of purchase of goods by group concern M/s Sanvijay Rolling & Engineering Ltd from M/s Dadhichi Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. notice u/s 148 was issued

AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-5,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is unjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for not allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of redemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.5, NAGPUR vs. M/S AVANTHA HOLDINGS LTD.,, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is unjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for not allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of redemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, NAGPUR vs. SONU MONU AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, Department's appeal stands dismissed

disallowed and required to be added back to the total\nincome of the assessee. As per section 10(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the\nagriculture income is the income which do not form part of total income and as\nper section 14A(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the purposes of computing the\ntotal income under this Chapter

INOCME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1(5), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK , NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for A

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under the head "interest accrued but not due on securities" ignoring the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. [(2009) 312 ITR 254] which states that under mercantile system of accounting what is receivable is brought into credit before its actually received. 3. Whether under

INOCME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1(5), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK , NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for A

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under the head "interest accrued but not due on securities" ignoring the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. [(2009) 312 ITR 254] which states that under mercantile system of accounting what is receivable is brought into credit before its actually received. 3. Whether under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. M/S. GONDWAN A ENGINEERS LTD, NAGPUR

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

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

disallowed the said claim on various grounds, but M/s. Gondwana Engineers Ltd. ITA no.420/Nag./2019 mainly on two grounds, firstly, the last date or due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1) for the assessment year 2014-15 was 30/11/2014 and, however the return of income was filed on 01/12/2014. Thus, this return of income