ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. M/S CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPRATIVE BANK LIMTED , 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

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and allowed deduction of ` 5,32,982, as against claim made by the assessee at ` 1,91,41,031. The assessee being aggrieved by the disallowance

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

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and allowed deduction of ` 5,32,982, as against claim made by the assessee at ` 1,91,41,031. The assessee being aggrieved by the disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI & CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE, AMRAVATI vs. CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT 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

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and allowed deduction of ` 5,32,982, as against claim made by the assessee at ` 1,91,41,031. The assessee being aggrieved by the disallowance

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

32,51,842/- remain unexplained and there is escapement of income in absence of return of income filed. Thus income from above transaction has not been offered for tax and due tax has not been paid. An opportunity of being heard as per provision of section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was provided to the assessee with

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

32,51,842/- remain unexplained and there is escapement of income in absence of return of income filed. Thus income from above transaction has not been offered for tax and due tax has not been paid. An opportunity of being heard as per provision of section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was provided to the assessee with

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

32,51,842/- remain unexplained and there is escapement of income in absence of return of income filed. Thus income from above transaction has not been offered for tax and due tax has not been paid. An opportunity of being heard as per provision of section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was provided to the assessee with

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

32,51,842/- remain unexplained and there is escapement of\nincome in absence of return of income filed. Thus income from above\ntransaction has not been offered for tax and due tax has not been paid. An\nopportunity of being heard as per provision of section 148A(b) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 was provided to the assessee with

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

32 Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10 to 2013–14 rendered in Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra) wherein it has been held that satisfaction note is required to be recorded under section 153C for each assessment year and in the impugned proceedings, a consolidated satisfaction note has been recorded for different assessment year by both the Assessing Officers

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

32 Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10 to 2013–14 rendered in Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra) wherein it has been held that satisfaction note is required to be recorded under section 153C for each assessment year and in the impugned proceedings, a consolidated satisfaction note has been recorded for different assessment year by both the Assessing Officers

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

32 Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10 to 2013–14 rendered in Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra) wherein it has been held that satisfaction note is required to be recorded under section 153C for each assessment year and in the impugned proceedings, a consolidated satisfaction note has been recorded for different assessment year by both the Assessing Officers

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

32 Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10 to 2013–14 rendered in Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra) wherein it has been held that satisfaction note is required to be recorded under section 153C for each assessment year and in the impugned proceedings, a consolidated satisfaction note has been recorded for different assessment year by both the Assessing Officers

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

32 Maheshwari Coal Benefication & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2009–10 to 2013–14 rendered in Sunil Kumar Sharma (supra) wherein it has been held that satisfaction note is required to be recorded under section 153C for each assessment year and in the impugned proceedings, a consolidated satisfaction note has been recorded for different assessment year by both the Assessing Officers

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2 (1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

disallowed the difference amount of ` 1,80,000, but also denied the assessee trust complete exemption claimed under the provisions of section 11 of the Act and accordingly brought to tax the entire surplus of trust of ` 5,07,32

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

disallowed the difference amount of ` 1,80,000, but also denied the assessee trust complete exemption claimed under the provisions of section 11 of the Act and accordingly brought to tax the entire surplus of trust of ` 5,07,32

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

disallowed the difference amount of ` 1,80,000, but also denied the assessee trust complete exemption claimed under the provisions of section 11 of the Act and accordingly brought to tax the entire surplus of trust of ` 5,07,32

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

section 36(1)(iii), which are part of audited books of account, cannot be disallowed. Thus the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the disallowance. Thus, ground no. 3, raised by the assessee is allowed. 31. As a result of the forgoing discussion, the appeal of the assessee is summarised below:– 32

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

32,000 sq.mtrs. and description of said land is survey no.11/1, Mauja Navsari, Taluka and District Amravati. Out of this, 1H92R i.e., 19,200 sq.mtrs. with construction thereon was sold on 22/03/2017. Description of property as per registered sale deed is residential house under construction with built–up area of 158.55 sq.mtrs. on the piece of plot measuring

ITO WARD-1(1) NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. ASHWAMI SALES AND MARKETING PVT.LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

32. It is worth noticing that in ACIT –vs.- Mr. Mohammed Suhail, Kurnool in ITA No. 1536.Hyd/2014, order dated 13.02.2015, the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal specifically held that the provisions of section 194C(6) are independent of section 194C(7), and just because there is violation of provisions of section 194C(7), disallowance under section