Search: disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. M/S. GONDWAN A ENGINEERS LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 420/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 8Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80ASection 80I

ii) Stp 50MLD Jalandhar and (iii) Stp 50MLD Nogalkarar, Jalandhar and on the same project assessee himself has claimed deduction u/s 801A, whereas he can only be termed as sub- contractor for these projects. 6. Any other grounds which may be raised at the time of hearing.” 3. The factual matrix is, the assessee is an engineering company and deals

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 569/NAG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Suyash RankaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 56Section 80P

801A as per Section 80A (5) of the Act as Assessee had not claimed the deduction in the Return of Income. 7.9 Thus, the Law laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court(supra) and Hon'ble Kerala High Court is that Assessee has to claim Deduction Under Chapter VIA of the Act under the heading "C.-Deductions

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 568/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Suyash RankaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 56Section 80P

801A as per Section 80A (5) of the Act as Assessee had not claimed the deduction in the Return of Income. 7.9 Thus, the Law laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court(supra) and Hon'ble Kerala High Court is that Assessee has to claim Deduction Under Chapter VIA of the Act under the heading "C.-Deductions

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 567/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Suyash RankaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 56Section 80P

801A as per Section 80A (5) of the Act as Assessee had not claimed the deduction in the Return of Income. 7.9 Thus, the Law laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court(supra) and Hon'ble Kerala High Court is that Assessee has to claim Deduction Under Chapter VIA of the Act under the heading "C.-Deductions

M/S SMS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,NAGPUR vs. D.C.I.T. CENTRALCIRCLE 2(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 566/NAG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Saket BhattadFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Marathe

Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 801ASection 80ASection 80I

801A of the Act. The delay in filling the return is not willful and the assessee has not been benefited by filling the return late. M/s. SMS Infrastructure Ltd. ITA no.566/Nag./2016 (3) That any other grounds may be raised during the course of hearing of this appeal.” 3. Facts in brief:- The assessee is a company engaged

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR vs. SHRI KIRIT SHARAD JOSHI, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 609/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Thakar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M. Bhosale, Jt. CIT–DR

Section 10

disallowed the exemption claimed under section 10(10D) of the Act. From the maturity value of ` 3,40,75,000, the Assessing Officer deducted the surrendered value of ` 87,71,328, on which the assessee had paid taxes on the above amount and brought the balance amount of ` 2,53,03,672 [i.e., ` 3

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S SUNFLAG IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 269/NAG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos. 268 & 269/Nag/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Nagpur. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. 33, Mount Road, Sadar, Nagpur-440 001 Pan : Aaccs3376C ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rachit Thakar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Headoo, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

ii) The appellant has drawn support from the decisions of Hon'ble Courts and relied on: (1) Sadhna Nitro Chem Ltd. Vs. A.B. KoliACIT(2014) 368 I.T.R. P.505 (Bombay) (2) Shri ChalthanVibhag Khand Vs. C.I.T.(2015) 376 I.T.R. P.419 (Gujarat) (3) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1961) 41 I.T.R. P.191 (S.C.) (iii) It cannot be argued that because the alleged income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S SUNFLAG IRON & STEEL CO. LTD. , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 268/NAG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos. 268 & 269/Nag/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Nagpur. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Sunflag Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. 33, Mount Road, Sadar, Nagpur-440 001 Pan : Aaccs3376C ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rachit Thakar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Headoo, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

ii) The appellant has drawn support from the decisions of Hon'ble Courts and relied on: (1) Sadhna Nitro Chem Ltd. Vs. A.B. KoliACIT(2014) 368 I.T.R. P.505 (Bombay) (2) Shri ChalthanVibhag Khand Vs. C.I.T.(2015) 376 I.T.R. P.419 (Gujarat) (3) Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1961) 41 I.T.R. P.191 (S.C.) (iii) It cannot be argued that because the alleged income