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

80A(5) read with Judiciary Judgments on the same clarifys that, "the deduction under chapter VIA is allowable if the claim of the same is made in the return of income either filed under section 139(1) or filed under section 139(4) or in response to notice u/s 142(1) or filed before completion of assessment. The specific disallowance

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

80A(5) read with Judiciary Judgments on the same clarifys\nthat, \"the deduction under chapter VIA is allowable if the claim of the same is\nmade in the return of income either filed under section 139(1) or filed under\nsection 139(4) or in response to notice u/s 142(1) or filed before completion\nof assessment. The specific disallowance

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

1. CIT V/s Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. (330 ITR 175) High Court of Bombay :- In this case Assessing Officer enhanced income by disallowing employer‟s as well as employee‟s contribution towards provident fund/ESIC, it was held that exemption under section 10A had to be granted on such enhanced income. Relevant Para:- As a matter of fact the question

SHRI SANT NARHARI NAGARI SHAHKAR PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,BHANDRA vs. ITO, WARD -2, BHANDARA

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed in part for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Sant Narhari Nagari Ito, Ward-2, Bhandara Shahkar Pat Sanstha Maryadit, R.No. 1/2 Nagar Vs. Palika Shivaji Chowk, Pauni, Bhandra-441910. Pan: Aakts 3987 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80A(5) of the Act was unwarranted. Even otherwise, the Assessee has claimed that certain payments were below the threshold u/sec. 194H of the Act and no tax liability existed for recipients and without prejudice, disallowance, if any, then it should be restricted and considered as an eligible business income deductible u/sec. 80P of the Act. Thus

THE SOMALWAR ACADEMY EDUCATION SOCIETIES EMPLOYEES CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY MAR.,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WAR 1(5), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

1)(a)(v) of the Act and therefore, the authorities below would not have disallowed the deduction claimed by the Assessee. The Assessee in support of its claim, relied on various judgments. 4. On the contrary, learned Departmental Representative (in short, ‘DR’) refuted the claim of the Assessee by relying on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High

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

1, Nagpur (“the Pr. CIT”) erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act and thereby revising the order passed by the Income Tax Officer -2, Akola (“the AO”) u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 19 August 2016 (“the order”) on the alleged ground that the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial