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

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

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 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

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

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

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

DCIT AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA, AKOLA vs. THE AKOLA JANATA COMMERCIAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., AKOLA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

disallowance of claim u/s.80P(2)(d) of Rs.42,57,348/-. 5. By the impugned order, CIT(A) allowed assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.80P after observing as under:- 5.7 The appellant is a Co-operative Credit society. It is not carrying out any banking activity so as to say that it is a Co-operative Bank. It is not registered

VEER JAGDEORAO KAPUS UTPADAK SAHAKARI SOOT GIRNI LTD.,,MALKAPUR vs. A.C.I.T. , AKOLA CIRCLEA, AKOLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.123/Nag/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Veer Jagdeorao Kapus Utpadak The Acit, Akola Circle, Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd., Vs Akola. Nandura Road, Malkapur – 443101. Dist: Buldhana. Pan: Aaav 0208 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 143(3) of the Act, 1961, dated 30.10.2009 for A.Y. 2007-08. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1] Learned C.I.T.(A) erred in disallowing the assessee’s appeal and confirming the addition amounting to Rs.1,89,80

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

disallowance whatsoever is made in the\nsame. Further, no notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued for\nconducting assessment. In view of above, assessment of the appellant is\ncompleted and had attained finality. The assessment was not abated at the\ntime of initiation of search action u/s 132 of the Act and as a result

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

disallowance whatsoever is made in the same. Further, no notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued for conducting assessment. In view of above, assessment of the appellant is completed and had attained finality. The assessment was not abated at the time of initiation of search action u/s 132 of the Act and as a result