DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR

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

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

b+c) Rs.6823460/- The Ld AO was not justified by not disposing off the petition dt. 21.01.2022 u/s 154 against the order u/s 143(1) on dt.24/12/2021. 2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of case, the Ld CIT(A) was justified in assuming that the Co-operative Bank is not a Co-operative Society as envisaged by provisions

M/S PYRAMID DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. JOINT CIT RANGE 1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

B–2. Shri Gunwant Sudamrao Deopare, Director of M/s. Pyramid Arcades Pvt. Ltd., in the course of his statement recorded on oath under section 131 of the Act on 19th January 2011, in response to Questions no.12 to 16, had admitted the additional unaccounted income of ` 2,09,37,500. The additional unaccounted income was declared on account

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

b the disallowance required to be made under Section 40A(3). In our opinion, the direction of the CIT(A) is fully justified. We, 4 ITA - 3303 & 3304/D/2013 therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the same. The order of learned CIT(A) is sustained.” 7. While going though the Tribunal’s order in the case

LOKMANYA TILAD JANAKALYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

disallowance u/s 40 (a)(ia) is unjustified and unsustainable. Gr.No.5: Addition of Rs.2,74,79,379/-. A) Assssee made provision for arrears to be paid to employees s per the recommendation of 6th Pay Commission. B) Even if above sum is excluded for the purpose of application of computing income u/s 11 of I.T. Act 1961. The application

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

40A(2)(b) of the Act. On the other hand, the appellant submits that, it had rightly informed time and again that none of the transporters were related parties nor appellant had entered into any agreement. On this issue there was nothing had been evidenced from the AO's side in the scrutiny order in order to prove that

PANKAJ UTTAMCHAND KATARIA ,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD -3, AMRAVATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.34/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pankaj Uttamchand Kataria, Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Amravati. Kataria Agencies, Nawathe Plot, Danwantri, Amravati. Pan : Aibpk3441Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri G. J. Ninawe Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 21.12.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, There Is A Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Of 317 Days. The Appellant Filed A Condonation Petition Stating That The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Had Occurred On Account Of The Appellant Pursuing The Alternative Remedy By Filing The Petition U/S 154 & The Order U/S 154 From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Was Received On 02.09.2017. Thereafter, The Counsel Of The Appellant Was Busy In Attending His Father, Who Is Aged About 83

disallowed a sum of Rs.1,57,200/- invoking the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) made

SHRI KISHORE SOMDATTA SHUKLA ,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3, AKOLA

Appeal is allowed in above terms

disallowance made for the same under section 40A(3) was deleted by the Tribunal for the following reasons given in paragraphs no. 21 & 22 of its order: "21. We find that M/s. Asansol Bottling & Packaging Co. Pvt. Ltd. is a bottling plant cum warehouse under Rule 2(vii) of the West Bengal Excise Rules, 2005 with privilege granted

ASSTT.CIT,CIR-8, NAGPUR vs. PRAKASH RAMDEO JAISWAL, GONDIA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s cross

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

2 4. These issues are inter-connected, therefore, are being taken up for adjudication. In fact, both the issues are in connection with the deletion of addition of ` 44,69,492 made by the Assessing Officer under section 40A(3) of the Act. Before going further, it would be 4 Shri Prakash Ramdeo Jaiswal necessary to advert the finding

AHSAAN QURESHI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

disallowed the amount of ` 3 lakh under section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

40A (2) (b) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has complied with the provisions of TDS on the interest payments as stated by the AO in the Remand Report. On facts, it is held that the addition made by the AO was not justified. The addition of Rs. 7,86,217/- made by the AO due to disallowance

SUNIL NARAYANDAS KHATOD ,AKOLA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.134/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sunil Narayndas Khatod, The Commissioner Of Nagpuri Gin Compound, Vs Income Tax-1, Behind Old Cotton Market, Nagpur. Nagpur – 444001. Pan: Adepk3087C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajesh V.Loya – Ca Revenue By Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2023

disallowed out of Brokerage Expenses. The Ld.Pr.CIT invoked jurisdiction u/s 263 on the ground that the AO had not referred the case to the Transfer Pricing Officer though one of the reasons for selection of the case for scrutiny was ‘Large Specifies Domestic Transactions’, which according the Ld.Pr.CIT was mandatory as per the provisions of the Act and CBDT instruction

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

section 153A, the Assessing Officer made various additions by examining the Profit & Loss Account, Tax Audit Report determining total assessed income at ` 41,20,69,270, by making following additions:– 1. Addition for purchases ` 3,03,94,825 Agricultural income treated as business 2. ` 3,74,537 income ` 36,89,290 3. Disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b

ACIT, CIRCLE- 3, NAGPUR vs. M/S SOLARIES HOLDING LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S. Solaries Holdings Ltd. Circle-3, Thapar House, 124, Nagpur Janpath, New Delhi Panno.:Aahcs 59040 B Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shripiyushkolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani (Adv.) Date Of Hearing: 18/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit-Ii, Nagpur Dated 01/09/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2008-09 Wherein The Department Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

Section 40A(2)a/40A(2)b as the appellant had entered into certain transactions with group concerns. However, in the absence of any such transactions in the books of the appellant, no such addition is required to be made. 11.4 In this context, it is important to note that the appellant has submitted that in the subsequent year

SHRI ANKIT SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Ankit Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Biapt 4756 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8/6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

b) In the case of Hon’ble SC in Krishan Kumar vs. ITO (2019) 265 Taxman 227 (SC) relied upon by the departmental officers the ratio of the casespeaksabout non-furnishing of details and explanation of source of deposits wherein the assessing officer had made addition of peak cash in hand of Rs. 36,80,000 under section 68. However

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S. FUELCO COAL INDIA LTD., NAGPUR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

40a(ia) on account of failure to deposit in the Govt Account the TDS deducted on 3. 1,86,63,861 payment made to M/s Bothra Shipping Services Pvt Ltd. Disallowance of 15% of finance cost claimed in the P&L 4. account on account of loans and advances gives to 15,86,284 related parties. The assessee being aggrieved

JASIBAI DAYARAM AMLANI,AMRAVATI vs. DCIT AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act applicable to the payments made to the related parties, Ld.AO observed that her son Mr. Naresh Amlani does not work for assessee and that the claim made towards salary expense of ₹3,00,000/- is bogus and disallowed

GIGEO CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3),, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

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

40A(3) are clear in as much as any payment made to a person above Rs.20,000/- in a day other than by account payee cheque or bank draft is not allowable as deduction subject to certain exemptions in Rule 6DD and financial difficulties and business expediency are not covered by the exemptions in Rule 6DD. 2. On the facts

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S GIGEO CONSTRUCTION CO.PVT. LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

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

40A(3) are clear in as much as any payment made to a person above Rs.20,000/- in a day other than by account payee cheque or bank draft is not allowable as deduction subject to certain exemptions in Rule 6DD and financial difficulties and business expediency are not covered by the exemptions in Rule 6DD. 2. On the facts

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S GIGEO CONSTRUCTION CO.PVT. LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

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

40A(3) are clear in as much as any payment made to a person above Rs.20,000/- in a day other than by account payee cheque or bank draft is not allowable as deduction subject to certain exemptions in Rule 6DD and financial difficulties and business expediency are not covered by the exemptions in Rule 6DD. 2. On the facts