SUNIL VISHAMBARNATH TIWARI,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sunil Vishambaharnath Tiwari, Vs. I.T.O. 87, Panchvati Builders, Hindustan Ward 1(4), Colony, Wardha Road, Nagpur- Nagpur. 440015. Pan No.: Aalpt 0719 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale (Sr.Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2021 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Nagpur Dated 30/05/2014 For The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Endorsing The View Taken By The A.O. Of Disallowing Claim Of The Assessee. 3. Assessee Craves Leave To Add & Alter Any Other Ground That May Be Taken At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. In This Appeal, There Is Delay Of 363 Days In Filing The Present Appeal For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condoning The Delay & The Contents Of The Same Are As Under:

73) 16. "After having gone through the facts of present case and after perusing the submissions of both the parties we found that identical issue has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Uma Developers (supra) wherein it was categorically held that the claim of the assessee cannot be disallowed under section

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

M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 1(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

section 153A of the Act by passing assessment order dated 21/03/2013, determining the total income at ` 52,76,37,930 by making following additions:– 3 M/s. Shree Agarwal Coal India Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.180/Nag./2016 1. Interest on FDR ` 38,57,643 2. Investment in land ` 75,000 3. Agricultural treated as business income ` 1,93,083 4. Deemed Dividend

SHRI RAJESH DAYARAMANI,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-8,, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

disallowance of claim of ` 42,44,840 under 3. section 54F of the Act. 4. The assessee has sold the property located at Kamptee and surplus arising on sale was shown as long term capital gain. The assessee has constructed the residential house and claimed exemption 4 Shri Rajesh Moolchand Dayaramani in respect of long term capital gain under section

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

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

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

disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 54F of the Act against the capital gain on transfer of long term capital asset, on the ground that the assessee owned interest in more than one residential properties and therefore, he was not entitled for deduction under section 54F of the Act. The learned assessing officer relied

KETAN CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(3),, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowing Rs.79,64,700/- from out of financial expenses and the learned CIT(A) was unjustified in only partly allowing the expenditure. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the expenditure is incurred for the purpose of business and therefore allowable. (3) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the trading transaction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,RAIPUR (CG), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S SARDA ENERGY & MINERALS LTD , NAGPUR

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules, quantified the disallowance on these provisions amounting to Rs.36,70,781/- for addition. The assessee earned dividend income of Rs.68,48,647/-. The said disallowance was made under clause (iii) of Rules 8D(2) of the I.T. Rules. The relevant discussion given in para

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,RAIPUR (CG), RAIPUR (CG) vs. M/S SARDA ENERGY & MINERALS LTD , NAGPUR

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T. Rules, quantified the disallowance on these provisions amounting to Rs.36,70,781/- for addition. The assessee earned dividend income of Rs.68,48,647/-. The said disallowance was made under clause (iii) of Rules 8D(2) of the I.T. Rules. The relevant discussion given in para

CHANDRAPUR ZILLA PARISHAD KARMACHARI CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY ,CHANDRAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHANDARPUR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

section 80P(2)(a) deduction claim of Rs.15,26,953/-, we note that the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion to this effect reads as under : 3 ITA.No.21/Nag./2021 Chandrapur Zilla Parishad Karmachari Credit Co-op Society, Chandrapur. 5. We note from perusal of the case file that the Assessing Officer’s original assessment had disallowed sec.80P(2)(a) deduction

SANJAY GULABCHAND GUPTA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

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

disallowed the claim under section 54F of the Act on the following reasons:– “…….. It can be seen that: 3 Sanjay Gulabchand Gupta ITA no.210/Nag./2023 1. The land use as per sanction development plan was for commercial purpose. Therefore the first and foremost question regarding the admissibility of the provisions of Section 54F in ay 2017-18 and of Section

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 68 only sets up a presumption against the assessee whenever unexplained credits are found in the books of account of the assessee. It cannot but be again said that the presumption is rebuttable. In refuting the presumption raised, the initial burden is on the assessee. This burden, which is placed on the assessee, shifts as soon as the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. THE VIDARBHA CO OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry& Shri K.M. Roy

73,16,473/–) which were claimed on account of interest/ dividend income earned from co-operative Banks being exempt u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. However the Ld. Commissioner allowed such deduction/exemption claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act and consequently deleted the said additions. And therefore the Revenue Department being aggrieved has preferred this appeal, challenging

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

ACIT, AKOLA CIRCLE,, AKOLA vs. THE NANDURA URBAN CO OP. BANK LTD.,, BULDHANA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) on 26th March 2013, determining the total income of ` 1,09,73,264, by disallowing

RAMKRUSHNA ZILBAJI THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WRAD -4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

73 taxmann.com 68 (Mumbai Trib.) wherein it was held as under: - "I have carefully considered the rival submissions. In the present case the addition has been made by the income tax authorities by treating the cash deposits in the bank account as an unexplained cash credit within the meaning of section 68 of the Act. The legal point raised

THE BULDHANA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD ,BULDHANA vs. DCIT, AKOLA CIRCLE , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 36(1)9viia) @ 7.5% of the Net Income and 10% of Average Rural Advances. The assessee has made reversal of the NPA Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts. This issue was in A.Y. 07-08 also and Hon. CIT(A) has allowed the same. Copy of the appeal order was submitted in our earlier submission paper book at page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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