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

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

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

ALEXIS MULTI SPECIALITY HOSPITAL PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

disallowance of provision for payment of gratuity u/s. 40A(7) of Rs.18,19,430/-: 5:1 The CPC-Bangalore/Assessing Officer has erred in making an adjustment to the returned income of the Appellant in spite of the clarifications being provided in terms of second proviso to section

ASSISTANT COMISSIONER CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHRIGOPAL RAMESHKUMAR SALES PVT. LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 40A(3) so as to warrant any disallowance under those heads as per law. 18. That with respect to the addition of ` 16,42,713, it is the submission of the assessee that the said amount pertains to payments made by farmers/agriculturist to the labourers directly for unloading charges without any recourse to the Assessee and as such

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

5. The disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) in para 4(2) at Rs. 1,86,63,861/-on account of payment made to M/s Bothra Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. Fornon deduction of TDS os wrong as per amendments in provisions. 6. The disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) as per Para

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), NAGPUR vs. RAHI MAHILA NAGRI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

sections 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 43B, etc. of the Act and other specific disallowances, related to the business activity against which the Chapter VI-A deduction has been claimed, result in enhancement of the profits of the eligible business, and that deduction under Chapter VI-A is admissible on the profits so enhanced by the disallowance." The principle

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 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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON vs. RENUKA OIL INDUSTRIES, KHAMGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

section 35AD(4), not disputing the factum or quantum (except disallowance of construction expenses of Rs 1.90.70,349 discussed in succeeding paragraphs) of investment in construction of the warehouse by the appellant and its in principle eligibility for deduction u/s 35AD by the AO, etc, are the various other factors which substantiate the genuineness et the claim of the appellant

SHREE GANESH BUILDERS LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy, Am

40A. Expenses or payments not deducible in certain circumstances (1) ……. (2) (3) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which a payment or aggregate or payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft, exceeds twenty thousand rupees, no deduction shall be allowed

SHREE GANESH BUILDERS LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy, Am

40A. Expenses or payments not deducible in certain circumstances (1) ……. (2) (3) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which a payment or aggregate or payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or account payee bank draft, exceeds twenty thousand rupees, no deduction shall be allowed