ASSTT. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. SMT. JOTI SURESH BAJORIA , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.151/Nag/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Smt. Jyoti Suresh Bajoria, Commissioner Of Income V 402/403, Jagat Plaza, Law Tax, Circle-1(1), S College Square, Amravati Nagpur. Road, Nagpur – 440010. Pan: Abrpb2740G Appellant / Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Kapil Sharma– Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash Kanojiya – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue I.E.Acit, Circle-1(1), Nagpur Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Nagpur Dated 26.03.2018 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 153A Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Smt. Jyoti Suresh Bajoria [R]

5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. There is no denial of the fact that AO has estimated the profit at 6% of the total turnover calculated as per seized documents. The AO has also made disallowance under section 40A

KHALID NADEEM ALLARAKHA,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

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

40A(3), therefore order passed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 2 Shri Karim Kamruddin Malik 3. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Nagpur erred in confirming the addition made at Rs. 1,53,976/- disallowing the commission income by assessing, therefore order passed is unjustified

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

Appeal is allowed in above terms

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 40A(3) of the Act.” 5

ACIT,CIR-8,, NAGPUR vs. SHRI ROSHANLAL RAMDEO JAISWAL,, GONDIA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is ordered to be dismissed

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

disallowance u/s 40A(3) on identical facts was dealt by my predecessor. The relevant portion of the order of CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- 4 Shri Roshanlal Ramdeo Jaiswal "However, appellant has claimed that there is relationship of principal and agents and between appellant and BSNL and hence appellant can give cash collected on behalf of principal and section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, WARDHA, WARDHA vs. PADMAKAR KRUSHNAJI WARBHE, HINGANGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 40A(3) and making\naddition of Rs.10,16,03,090/- holding that the payment are made to non-agriculturist.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) is justified in holding\nthat the assessee has furnished all the details to establish the nature of transaction and\nthe participants and further holding that the payments

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

disallowance can be made by applying Section 40A(3) irrespective of the mode of payment. The A.O. in para 12.9 of his order has made comments regarding of principal and agent between BSNL and franchisee in short which goes against the above verdicts .It seems that the A.O. has not given proper congnizance to the verdict of Honourable High Court

ASTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,AMRAVATI CIR.AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI vs. SHRI AKASH RAMESHWAR PANPALIA,

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Sh. Mahavir Singhacit, Vs Akash Rameshwar Panpalia, Amravati Circle, Ward No.14, Dhamangaon Amravati, Aayakar Railway, Distt.-Amravati–4447–9. Bhawan, Ambapeth, Pan–Aiopp8687J Amravati–444601. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh.R.K.Baral, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh.K.P.Dewani, Adv. Date Of Hearing 08.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 08.03.2018

disallowed a sum of Rs.1,19,18,353/–. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A). 5. Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing that the assessee has made payment to the labourers which was below prescribed limit as prescribed by the provisions of section 40A

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act to the tune of ` 6,37,77,092, was made. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred the appeal before the first appellate authority. 4. The learned CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee by observing as follows:– ―4.3. The submissions made by the appellant

ITO, WARD- 4 (1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI SWAPNIL ANIL AHIRKAR, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

5. Under this issue, the Revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of ` 24 lakh made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance under section 14A(3) on account of cash payment of ` 12 lakh each in respect of land in Khasra no.7/2, 7/3, Ph. No.46, Mouza, Isanami, Teh. Hingna, Dist. Nagpur. On verification of the return of income

AJAZ AHMAD,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AKOLA

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

disallowed by the Assessing Officer in view of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act and added to income of the assessee. 5

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act." 11. We find that the issues on which re–assessment order was passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act and the issues on which revision order passed under section 263 of the Act are entirely different. The assessee had filed Paper Books containing documents filed during re– assessment proceedings

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

disallowance u/s 40a(ia) of the Act." 11. We find that the issues on which re–assessment order was passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act and the issues on which revision order passed under section 263 of the Act are entirely different. The assessee had filed Paper Books containing documents filed during re– assessment proceedings

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

ROSHAN RAMDEO JAISWAL,GONDIA vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE-8, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the assessee and the cross-objection of the assessee are disposed of in terms indicated above

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Mahavir Singh

Section 40A(3) of the Act. For this, Revenue has raised following ground Nos.5 & 6 :- “5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case CIT(A) erred in holding that there existed a relationship of Principal & Agent between BSNL & the assessee and that provisions of sec. 40A(3) are not attracted. 6. On the facts

ACIT, CIR-8, NAGPUR vs. ROSHANLAL RAMDEO JAISWAL,, GONDIA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the assessee and the cross-objection of the assessee are disposed of in terms indicated above

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Mahavir Singh

Section 40A(3) of the Act. For this, Revenue has raised following ground Nos.5 & 6 :- “5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case CIT(A) erred in holding that there existed a relationship of Principal & Agent between BSNL & the assessee and that provisions of sec. 40A(3) are not attracted. 6. On the facts

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 made by the Assessing Officer being not justified. 5

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

40A(3), 43B, etc of the Act and other specific disallowances , related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI A Deductions has been claimed, result in enhancement of the profits of eligible business, and that deduction under Chapter VI A is admissible on the profits of the eligible business, and that deduction under chapter VI A is admissible

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

40A(3), 43B, etc of the Act and other specific disallowances , related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI A Deductions has been claimed, result in enhancement of the profits of eligible business, and that deduction under Chapter VI A is admissible on the profits of the eligible business, and that deduction under chapter VI A is admissible