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

2) was issued vide notice dated 31-01-2023. On verification of information filed by the assessee, it is noticed that a claim for deduction u/s 80P was made by the assessee of Rs. 53,72,108/- in the return. 5 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 a) The claim made by the assessee is not allowable

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

2) was issued vide notice dated 31-01-2023. On verification of information filed by the assessee, it is noticed that a claim for deduction u/s 80P was made by the assessee of Rs. 53,72,108/- in the return. 5 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 a) The claim made by the assessee is not allowable

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

2) was issued vide notice dated 31-01-2023. On verification of information filed by the assessee, it is noticed that a claim for deduction u/s 80P was made by the assessee of Rs. 53,72,108/- in the return. 5 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 a) The claim made by the assessee is not allowable

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

2) was issued vide notice dated 31-01-2023. On\nverification of information filed by the assessee, it is noticed that a claim for\ndeduction u/s 80P was made by the assessee of Rs. 53,72,108/- in the return.\na) The claim made by the assessee is not allowable u/s 80AC. Section 80 AC\n(ii) specifies that \"Deduction

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)

2,28,435/- on account of disallowance of provision for bad debts. 6. The Assessee being aggrieved, challenged the said disallowances by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner affirmed the said disallowances. 3 7. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, the Assessee

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

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

2. In the instant case, the Assessee by filing its return of income for the assessment year under consideration on dated 26/03/2019 claimed the deduction of Rs. 7,46,340/- u/sec. 80P of the Act, which was disallowed by the CPC vide intimation/order dated 04/07/2019 u/sec. 143(1) of the Act and, therefore, the Assessee challenged the said disallowance/addition