TERRA INFRA DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance are supported by bona fide explanation. The case of assessee is not underreporting of income in terms of provisions of section 270A(6) of the Act is exigible for imposition of penalty. 8. Per–contra, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the authorities below and prayed that the concurrent findings of the learned CIT(A) need

PREMJEET SINGH,DABHA NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

270A since we have disclosed full facts and figures and have not kept any facts and figures hidden from you. Also, we missed fling Form 10E during ITR fling and claimed all deductions under section 10, which again could have resulted in arrears relief us 89(1) My Employer has not released my balance salary

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

RAVINDRA MADHUKAR KHARCHE,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE, CHANDRAPUR, CHANDRAPUR

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Virtually From Itat, Pune) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 228/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ravindra Madhukar Kharche, 602, Nilgiri Himalaya Empire, Phulmati Layout, Badikheda, Nagpur. Pan: Ackpk1961E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

section 10(10) of the Act as against the claim of ₹20 Lakhs made in revised ITR. (b) addition of ₹21,550/- being difference of interest income offered to tax as against the income reported in form 26AS. The assessee did not challenge the disallowances and the consequential additions in appeal. 2.3 Pursuant to aforestated disallowance/additions, the Ld. AO initiated

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

270A(9), and charged interest under Sections 234A and 234B, along with fees under Section 234F of the Act for non-filing of the income tax return under Section 139(1). The same shall be deleted. 15. The learned CIT (A) NFAC has erred in law and acted unjustifiably by confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer without conducting

PANHERA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,BULDHANA vs. ITO WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

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

270A of the Act. 10. It is the case of the Department that the Auditor in the 3CD report for the relevant assessment year had categorically stated that admissible amount of deduction under section 80P of the Act is only ` 11,72,904. Hence the excess claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act amounting

PANHERA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,BULDHANA vs. ITO WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

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

270A of the Act. 10. It is the case of the Department that the Auditor in the 3CD report for the relevant assessment year had categorically stated that admissible amount of deduction under section 80P of the Act is only ` 11,72,904. Hence the excess claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act amounting

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S VEDSIDHA PRODUCTS PRIVAT LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

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

disallowance under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. M/s. Vedsidha Products Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.25/Nag./2020 Share Face Premium Total Capital Share Premium issued Value Per Share 3,12,980 100 – 3,12,98,000 – 35,000 100 450 35,00,000 1,57,50,000 3,47,980 3,47,98,000 1,57,50,000 Aggrieved

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

10. Submissions made have been considered. 11. Regarding Smt. Savitri Thakur, it is seen that she had issued cheque payment of Rs. 14 lakhs dated 21- 7-2009 to the Appellant. Prior to the issuance of the cheques, this amount was credited into the bank account of Smt. Savitri Thakur maintained in the State Bank of India. Rae Baraeli Branch

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

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

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

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year

OSHIAN REALTORS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

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

270A have been initiated based on observations, without discussing in details as to whether those observations are justified/correct. 6. THAT Hon' CIT(A) has completely misunderstood the arguments put forward by the assessee and discussed and adjudicated on issues the assessee did not even raise, often attributing statements cooked up by Hon' CIT(A) to the assessee. 7. THAT