DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCEL-1(2, NAGPUR vs. M/S. VIBRANT GLOBAL CAPITAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. The assessee 3 M/s. Vibrant Global Capital Ltd. ITA no.229/Nag./2022 has not preferred any appeal against the addition upheld by learned CIT(A). The Revenue has preferred appeal in respect to additions deleted in the appeal of the assessee and are enumerated in the grounds of appeal reproduced above

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

disallowed even prior to 2018. Relevanit extract of the order is as\nunder:\nThe Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of EBR Enterprises Vs. Union of\nIndia 415 ITR 139 (Bombay), dated 4th June, 2019 has held as under:\nQuote, 5. As per this provision, where the assessee fails to make a claim in his\nreturn of income

SHRI DEEPAK SITARAM LADDHAD,BULDHANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

Bench: S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.375/Nag/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Deepak Sitaram The Deputy Commissioner Of Laddhad Laddhad Hospital, Vs Income Tax, Akola Circle, Behind Shivaji College, Akola. Wankhede Layoiut, Buldhana – 443001. Pan: Aarpl 4180 F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri G.J.Ninawe – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nagpur Dated 17.07.2017 Emanating From The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 14.03.2013. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1] Learned C.I.T.(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance The Interest Amounting To Rs.2,80,926/- Out Of Disallowance The Interest Made By A.O. Amounting To Rs.3,69,635/-. 2] Learned C.I.T.(A) Erred In Not Properly Appreciate The Fact Of The Case & Various Submission Filed Before The A.O. & Before Her.

disallowed the said amount of Rs.3,69,635/- under section 36(1)(iii) r.w.37(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same

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

disallowance of Rs. 3,10,478/-, which was made with respect to\ninterest and when the same has been confirmed by the ITAT, it cannot be said\nthat ITAT has committed any error and/or illegality, which calls for the\ninterference of this Court.\nIn paragraph 11, ITAT has observed and held as under:\n\"We have heard the rival submissions

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

disallowed the exemption u/s 80P. Hence grounds 1,4,5 and 7 are decided against the assessee.” 11 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 4. We are in complete disagreement with the conclusion drawn by the learned CIT(A). He has completely misunderstood the ratio of the cases. Provisions of section 80AC of the Act has been amended

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

disallowed the exemption u/s 80P. Hence grounds 1,4,5 and 7 are decided against the assessee.” 11 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 4. We are in complete disagreement with the conclusion drawn by the learned CIT(A). He has completely misunderstood the ratio of the cases. Provisions of section 80AC of the Act has been amended

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

disallowed the exemption u/s 80P. Hence grounds 1,4,5 and 7 are decided against the assessee.” 11 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 4. We are in complete disagreement with the conclusion drawn by the learned CIT(A). He has completely misunderstood the ratio of the cases. Provisions of section 80AC of the Act has been amended

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

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

disallowed. 4.9 This jurisprudence was further explained in the recent judgment of the Jaipur Tribunal in case of Shri Kailash Chand Soni V/s ACIT (ITA NO.960/JP/2019) where in it was held that- “Para 14 :- We are of the view that it is not necessary that the expenditure incurred must have been obligatory; it is enough to show that the money

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

disallowance under section 14A at ₹ 15,75,789, though the assessee is not liable for the same. Being aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority.\n6. During the proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee made a detailed submission which was recorded by the learned CIT(A) in its impugned order vide Page

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

disallowance of Rs. 3,10,478/-, which was made with respect to\ninterest and when the same has been confirmed by the ITAT, it cannot be said\nthat ITAT has committed any error and/or illegality, which calls for the\ninterference of this Court.\nIn paragraph 11, ITAT has observed and held as under:\n\"We have heard the rival submissions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENT CIRCLE -1(3), NAGPUR vs. RADHIKA METALS AND MINERALS, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowing payment made to labour contractors. The A.O. during assessment proceedings noticed that the appellant has incurred expenditure of ` 98,72,370/– towards mining expenses. These expenses are on account of extraction of manganese ore to following labour contractors– 1. B. Sudhakar `22,52,300 2. D. Govind `22,64,850 3. S. Hussain `18,63,550 4. S. Ramesh

NARAYAN BHAGYACHANDRA KHATRI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Narayan Bhagyachandra Khatri Acit, Amravati Circle, Amravati Flat No. Sp-2/102, Streling Springdale Vs Aayakarbhavan, Near Dps School, Apartment, Raj Nagar, Nagpur, Saturna, Amravati, Maharashtra – 440013. Maharashtra – 440006. [Pan: Aaccg4441J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

disallowed Rs. 25,00,000/- by treating as unexplained investment under section 69 and tax the same under section 115BBE

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU AJAY SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the A

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

disallowed deduction of ` 1,88,69,966, under section 80IA of the Act on the ground that as per sub- section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU AJAY SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the A

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

disallowed deduction of ` 1,88,69,966, under section 80IA of the Act on the ground that as per sub- section

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. R.B.S.D. AND F.N. DAS (EXPORT FIRM), VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

69 of the Act reproduced as under:- SECTION 69C. Unexplained expenditure, etc. Where in any financial year an assessee has incurred any expenditure and he offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or part thereof, or the explanation, if any, offered by him is not, in the opinion of the 2448[Assessing Officer), satisfactory, the amount covered

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

section 10(38) of the Act. 4. (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries –Vs- Commissioner Of Central Excise Not allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses by adjudicating authority though statements of those witnesses were made as basis of impugned order, amounted in serious flaw which make impugned order nullity as it amounted to violation of principles of natural

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. R.B.S.D. AND F.N. DAS (EXPORT FIRM), VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance towards payments to 6 different\nlabour contractors under section 69C of the Act.\n5.\nOn appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition with following\nobservations:-\n\"4. Discussion and Decision:-\nGround no.3, is regarding addition of ₹ 1,04,27,361, u/s 69C being\nunexplained expenditure to contractors. The A.O., during the assessment\nproceedings noticed that the appellant

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

Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act 6.1 During the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant furnished copy of the order of the earlier CIT(A) on identical issue, dated 05.06.2023 for the AY 2017-18 in appellant's own case, allowing the claim made u/s 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act by holding that