ACIT, CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. CHANDRAPUR DISTT. CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD , CHANDRAPUR

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

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

274 read with section Income Tax Act?" 271(1)(c) of the Act? 2. The assessment year is 2009-10. The assessee, a cooperative bank, claimed deduction of Rs. 77,92,437/- at the rate of 10% being statutory allowance for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The said 10% amount arose from aggregate

ACIT, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI vs. CHANDRAPUR DIST CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act?" 2. The assessment year is 2009-10 The assessee, a cooperative bank, claimed deduction of Rs. 77,92,437/- at the rate of 10% being statutory allowance for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act The said 10% amount arose from aggregate average

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

section 68 is clear. The Legislature has laid down\nthat in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash\ncredit may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of\nthat previous year. In this, case the legislative mandate is not in terms\nof the words \"shall be charged to income-tax as the income

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 69 has held that in creating the legal fiction the phraseology employs the word \"may\" and not \"shall\". Thus the unsatisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 69.\nFurther, we may point out that section 68 under which the addition has\nbeen made by the Assessing Officer reads as under:\n\"68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee\nmaintained for any previous year. and the assessee offers no\nexplanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation\noffered

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

section 69.\nFurther, we may point out that section 68 under which the addition has\nbeen made by the Assessing Officer reads as under:\n\"68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee\nmaintained for any previous year. and the assessee offers no\nexplanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation\noffered

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

section 69.\nFurther, we may point out that section 68 under which the addition has\nbeen made by the Assessing Officer reads as under:\n\"68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee\nmaintained for any previous year. and the assessee offers no\nexplanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation\noffered

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

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee under the head income from business and profession. The penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 initiated separately for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. On appeal, the learned CIT(A), vide Para–7.0 to 7.5, deleted

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

disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee under the head income from business and profession. The penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 initiated separately for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. On appeal, the learned CIT(A), vide Para–7.0 to 7.5, deleted

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

2) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the\naddition made by AO in the proceedings u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 in absence of incriminating document found as a result of search. The\nadditions made are void and bad in law.\n(3) That the learned CIT(A) erred

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 68 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961. Further, the AO did not find the explanation offered by the assessee\nsatisfactory and stated that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus\ntowards explaining the credit of Rs.15,00,000/-. We respectfully object to the\nabove observations and allegations made by the AO as the same are based on\nconjectures