DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU AJAY SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the A

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

7. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and relied upon the order passed by the learned CIT(A). He thus prayed for upholding the order of the learned CIT(A). 8. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that the reason stated by the Assessing Officer for re-opening the assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU AJAY SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the A

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

7. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and relied upon the order passed by the learned CIT(A). He thus prayed for upholding the order of the learned CIT(A). 8. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that the reason stated by the Assessing Officer for re-opening the assessment

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

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

disallowed even prior to 2018. Relevanit extract of the order is as\nunder:\nThe Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of EBR Enterprises Vs. Union of\nIndia 415 ITR 139 (Bombay), dated 4th June, 2019 has held as under:\nQuote, 5. As per this provision, where the assessee fails to make a claim in his\nreturn of income

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

7 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 assessment proceeding only. Thereby the disallowance under Section 80P on these Ground is Untenable and aginst the principals of law. The Learned Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim u/s 80P under the light of Sec 80AC(ii) which States as follows, "For section 80AC (ii) of the Income

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

7 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 assessment proceeding only. Thereby the disallowance under Section 80P on these Ground is Untenable and aginst the principals of law. The Learned Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim u/s 80P under the light of Sec 80AC(ii) which States as follows, "For section 80AC (ii) of the Income

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

7 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 assessment proceeding only. Thereby the disallowance under Section 80P on these Ground is Untenable and aginst the principals of law. The Learned Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim u/s 80P under the light of Sec 80AC(ii) which States as follows, "For section 80AC (ii) of the Income

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

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

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