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

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

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act to the tune of ` 79,65,842/- under Chapter-VIA of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed

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

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act to the tune of ` 79,65,842/- under Chapter-VIA of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed

TERRA INFRA DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance are supported by bona fide explanation. The case of assessee is not underreporting of income in terms of provisions of section 270A(6) of the Act is exigible for imposition of penalty. 8. Per–contra, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the authorities below and prayed that the concurrent findings of the learned CIT(A) need

AMARCHAND LAXMINARAYAN MANTRI,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). When demanded by the Assessing Officer, the assessee produced its books of account, bills & vouchers and the same were examined by the Assessing Officer on test check basis. On verification of Profit & Loss Account, it was noticed that the assessee had claimed brokerage and commission expenses to the tune

AMARCHAND LAXMINARAYAN MANTRI,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). When demanded by the Assessing Officer, the assessee produced its books of account, bills & vouchers and the same were examined by the Assessing Officer on test check basis. On verification of Profit & Loss Account, it was noticed that the assessee had claimed brokerage and commission expenses to the tune

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

disallowance under s. 14A was not sustainable. In view of the fact claim made by the assessee is true and correct and same may kindly be allowed.” 7. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties; perused material placed on record and duly considered the facts of the case in the 17 Shri Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani ITA no.410/Nag

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE , AKOLA vs. AKOLA URBAN CO-OPRATIVE BANK LTD , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

79,321/- in contravention to provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in treating revaluation of assets by Asset Reconstruction Company of NPA as loss or bad debts written off without appreciating the facts of the case. 2 The Akola

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

section 68 is clear. The Legislature has laid down\nthat in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash\ncredit may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of\nthat previous year. In this, case the legislative mandate is not in terms\nof the words \"shall be charged to income-tax as the income

SANJAY SHANKARRAO JADHAO,AMRAVATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

section 801A(5) of I.T. Act 1961. 3) The learned A.O. ought to have accepted claim of deduction u/s 801A(4)(iv) of I.T. Act 1961 at Rs. 10,11,059/- as made in the return. 4) The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the order passed by A.O. disallowing deduction as claimed u/s 801A

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

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

79,788 = 12.26765 % In the case of assessee for AY 2008-09 the proportionate expenses are: A.Y 2008-09 Amount Particulars Amount (`) % disallowed Disallowed TRANSPORTATION 3,29,52,531 FREIGHT & FORWARDING 11,75,342 TOTAL 3,41,27,873 12.26765 4186688.012 Accordingly, an amount of Rs.41,86,688/- is treated as bogus and non-genuine expenditure and added to total

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

79,788 = 12.26765 % In the case of assessee for AY 2008-09 the proportionate expenses are: A.Y 2008-09 Amount Particulars Amount (`) % disallowed Disallowed TRANSPORTATION 3,29,52,531 FREIGHT & FORWARDING 11,75,342 TOTAL 3,41,27,873 12.26765 4186688.012 Accordingly, an amount of Rs.41,86,688/- is treated as bogus and non-genuine expenditure and added to total

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

79,788 = 12.26765 % In the case of assessee for AY 2008-09 the proportionate expenses are: A.Y 2008-09 Amount Particulars Amount (`) % disallowed Disallowed TRANSPORTATION 3,29,52,531 FREIGHT & FORWARDING 11,75,342 TOTAL 3,41,27,873 12.26765 4186688.012 Accordingly, an amount of Rs.41,86,688/- is treated as bogus and non-genuine expenditure and added to total

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

79,788 = 12.26765 % In the case of assessee for AY 2008-09 the proportionate expenses are: A.Y 2008-09 Amount Particulars Amount (`) % disallowed Disallowed TRANSPORTATION 3,29,52,531 FREIGHT & FORWARDING 11,75,342 TOTAL 3,41,27,873 12.26765 4186688.012 Accordingly, an amount of Rs.41,86,688/- is treated as bogus and non-genuine expenditure and added to total

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

79,788 = 12.26765 % In the case of assessee for AY 2008-09 the proportionate expenses are: A.Y 2008-09 Amount Particulars Amount (`) % disallowed Disallowed TRANSPORTATION 3,29,52,531 FREIGHT & FORWARDING 11,75,342 TOTAL 3,41,27,873 12.26765 4186688.012 Accordingly, an amount of Rs.41,86,688/- is treated as bogus and non-genuine expenditure and added to total

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

79,788 = 12.26765 % In the case of assessee for AY 2008-09 the proportionate expenses are: A.Y 2008-09 Amount Particulars Amount (`) % disallowed Disallowed TRANSPORTATION 3,29,52,531 FREIGHT & FORWARDING 11,75,342 TOTAL 3,41,27,873 12.26765 4186688.012 Accordingly, an amount of Rs.41,86,688/- is treated as bogus and non-genuine expenditure and added to total

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground