ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the A

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

section 10A the addition made on account of the disallowance of the provident fund/ESIC payments ought to be ignored cannot be accepted. No statutory provision to that effect having been made, the plain consequence of the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer must follow. The second question shall accordingly stand answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee

ITO, WARD-6(1),, NAGPUR vs. THE VIDARBHA PREMIER CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY,, NAGPUR

In the result these appeals by the assessee and revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

disallowed. Hence the amount of Rs.l,14,4S,448j- after allowing deduction of Rs.5O,OOO/- u/s 80P(2)(c)(ii), is added back to the total income of the assessee as 'income from business'. 4. In view of the above remarks, the total income of the assessee is computed as under : ITA No. 232/Nag/2012. Income from Business Net profit

THE VIDHARBHA PREMIER CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,,NAGPUR vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, RANGE-6, NAGPUR

In the result these appeals by the assessee and revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

disallowed. Hence the amount of Rs.l,14,4S,448j- after allowing deduction of Rs.5O,OOO/- u/s 80P(2)(c)(ii), is added back to the total income of the assessee as 'income from business'. 4. In view of the above remarks, the total income of the assessee is computed as under : ITA No. 232/Nag/2012. Income from Business Net profit

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2 (1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

disallow exemption of section 11 of I.T. Act merely on the addition of 2 Jaymahakali Shikshan Sanstha A.Y. 2017–18, 2018–19 & 2019–20 Rs.1,80

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

disallow exemption of section 11 of I.T. Act merely on the addition of 2 Jaymahakali Shikshan Sanstha A.Y. 2017–18, 2018–19 & 2019–20 Rs.1,80

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

disallow exemption of section 11 of I.T. Act merely on the addition of 2 Jaymahakali Shikshan Sanstha A.Y. 2017–18, 2018–19 & 2019–20 Rs.1,80

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

80-1B (10) of the Act would be hit by Sub Section (5) of Section 80A of the act. …………….. …………….. What Sub Section (5) of Section 80A of the Act mandates is that, if the assessee fails to make a claim in his retum of income for any deduction under the provisions specified therein, the same would not be granted

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

80-1B (10) of the Act would be hit by Sub Section (5) of Section 80A of the act. …………….. …………….. What Sub Section (5) of Section 80A of the Act mandates is that, if the assessee fails to make a claim in his retum of income for any deduction under the provisions specified therein, the same would not be granted

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

80-1B (10) of the Act would be hit by Sub Section (5) of Section 80A of the act. …………….. …………….. What Sub Section (5) of Section 80A of the Act mandates is that, if the assessee fails to make a claim in his retum of income for any deduction under the provisions specified therein, the same would not be granted

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

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

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

80 AC (ii) specifies that "Deduction not to be allowed unless return is furnished as specified under sub section (1) of section 139. The assessee has not filed return of income within the due date of subsection (1) of section 139. If notice u/s 148 of the Act would not have been issued to the assessee, assessee would not have

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 80 of the Act by Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2016. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has adjudged that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 35AD of the Act and its carry forward and setoff of loss from specified business subject to other specific expenses disallowed

DOCTOR PUNJABRAO DESHMUKH KRUSHI VIDYAPEETH KARAMCHARI PAT SANSTHA MRYAT ,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AKOLA

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

disallowed." 8. In course of the present appellate proceedings, practically the appellant has not made out a case for relief against belated filing of the return of income. The appellant has submitted through its statement of facts that "Nominal delay in submission of rectum is on account of reasonable cause. The Doctor Punjabrao Deshmukh Krushi Vidyapeeth Karamchari Pat Sanstha Mryat

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

80 (P) (2) (d) of the Act specifically exempts interest earned from investments made by it with any co-operative society, a co-operative society is entitled to deduction of the whole of such income under section 80P (2) (d) of the Act. However, interest earned from investment made in any bank, not being co- operative society, is not deductible

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

80 (P) (2) (d) of the Act specifically exempts interest earned from investments made by it with any co-operative society, a co-operative society is entitled to deduction of the whole of such income under section 80P (2) (d) of the Act. However, interest earned from investment made in any bank, not being co- operative society, is not deductible

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance under section 40A(3) can be made. The\nId. CIT(A) also recorded the fact that the AO in his order accepted during\nassessment the assessee furnished details but the same was not found\nsuitable by him. We find that the AO has not disputed the figure of withdrawal\nof Rs.50,80

PRATHAMIK SHIKSHAK KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT vs. I.T.O. WARD -2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya. (S.M.C.)

80-P of Rs.1784272-00 and disallowance of provision. 2. In this case the assessee is a co-operative credit society. In the assessment order the AO denied the benefit of exemption u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) holding that the assessee society was engaged in the business of cooperative 2 ITA No. 524/Nag/2016. banking. While holding so the AO observed

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.

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 and various submission filed before the A.O. and before her. ITA No.375/NAG/2017 for A.Y.2010-11 Shri Deepak Sitaram Ladhad [A] 3] Assessee craves to urge additional grounds at the time of hearing