DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCEL-1(2, NAGPUR vs. M/S. VIBRANT GLOBAL CAPITAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance to be made under section 14A of the Act at ` 25,99,737. The aforesaid sum comprising of two amounts being ` 10,09,988, on account of interest in terms of Rule 8D(2)(ii) of Income Tax Rules, 1962, and further sum of ` 15,89

HARIOM BIOTECH AGRI FARMING,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CPC BENGALURU, CPC BENGALURU KARNATAKA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under 98[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

89,09,181, on which interest amounting to ₹ 17,07,742, has been paid. The assessee received dividend amounting to ₹ 48,899, which was claimed exempt under section 10(34) of the Act and claimed expenditure at ₹ 15,75,789, in the return of income. The Assessing Officer has made disallowance

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. R.B.S.D. AND F.N. DAS (EXPORT FIRM), VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

89,787 During assessment proceeding appellant has submitted copy of bills issued by labour contractors, their Ledger account in the books of appellant, copy of form 16A downloaded from Traces site and bank statements showing payments to them after due deduction of TDS. However, the Id. AO held that the appellant has not furnished copy of agreement for work contract

AMARCHAND LAXMINARAYAN MANTRI,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

89,250, is hereby deleted. Ground no.1, is allowed. 9. In ground no.2, to Assessing Officer made addition of ` 6 lakh towards cash deposit in bank treating the same to be unexplained. 10. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deposit of ` 6 lakh on 11/10/2012, in the HDFC bank bearing account no.000069106, which is in the name of the assessee

AMARCHAND LAXMINARAYAN MANTRI,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

89,250, is hereby deleted. Ground no.1, is allowed. 9. In ground no.2, to Assessing Officer made addition of ` 6 lakh towards cash deposit in bank treating the same to be unexplained. 10. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deposit of ` 6 lakh on 11/10/2012, in the HDFC bank bearing account no.000069106, which is in the name of the assessee

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

MOHANLAL KALAJII SUTHAR,NAGPUR vs. DY, CIT CIR.1, NAGPUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.22/Nag/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mohanlal Kalaji Suthar, The Dy.Cit, Circle-1, Vinayaka Metal Indus, Shop Vs. Nagpur. No.04, Sai Wadi Sankul, Midc T Point, Amravati Road, Wadi, Nagpur – 440023. Pan: Arrps 5022 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri G.J.Ninawe – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2023

disallowing commission and brokerage of Rs.21,89,875/- in issue. 3. We note that the assessee’s instant appeal hardly required us to deal the relevant facts at length. We make it clear that the CIT(A)’s order has been passed against the Assessing Officer’s section

INDOWORTH INDIA LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), CIRCLE 51(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

89,527, but due to some clerical mistakes, the assessee had not disallowed the interest provision for the F.Y. 2012-13 and F.Y. 2013-14. The assessee disallowed the interest in F.Y. 2019-20 at the time of filling the return of income for the F.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14. He submitted that considering the nature of expenditure being

M/S INDOWORTH INDIA LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), CIRCLE 51(1) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

89,527, but due to some clerical mistakes, the assessee had not disallowed the interest provision for the F.Y. 2012-13 and F.Y. 2013-14. The assessee disallowed the interest in F.Y. 2019-20 at the time of filling the return of income for the F.Y. 2012-13 and 2013-14. He submitted that considering the nature of expenditure being

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB and expenses has not been made on the basis of any incriminating evidence found on search. The addition of Rs 2 crore has been made on the 36 Smt. AanjuSaraf basis of loose chit written by Mr. Ajay Saraf (spouse of assessee)- inventorised as Annexure B- 1/1, which is reproduced by the AD on Page

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB and expenses has not been made on the basis of any incriminating evidence found on search. The addition of Rs 2 crore has been made on the 36 Smt. AanjuSaraf basis of loose chit written by Mr. Ajay Saraf (spouse of assessee)- inventorised as Annexure B- 1/1, which is reproduced by the AD on Page

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB and expenses has not been made on the basis of any incriminating evidence found on search. The addition of Rs 2 crore has been made on the 36 Smt. AanjuSaraf basis of loose chit written by Mr. Ajay Saraf (spouse of assessee)- inventorised as Annexure B- 1/1, which is reproduced by the AD on Page

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB and expenses has not been made on the basis of any incriminating evidence found on search. The addition of Rs 2 crore has been made on the 36 Smt. AanjuSaraf basis of loose chit written by Mr. Ajay Saraf (spouse of assessee)- inventorised as Annexure B- 1/1, which is reproduced by the AD on Page

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB and expenses has not been made on the basis of any incriminating evidence found on search. The addition of Rs 2 crore has been made on the 36 Smt. AanjuSaraf basis of loose chit written by Mr. Ajay Saraf (spouse of assessee)- inventorised as Annexure B- 1/1, which is reproduced by the AD on Page

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB and expenses has not been made on the basis of any incriminating evidence found on search. The addition of Rs 2 crore has been made on the 36 Smt. AanjuSaraf basis of loose chit written by Mr. Ajay Saraf (spouse of assessee)- inventorised as Annexure B- 1/1, which is reproduced by the AD on Page

M/S TAWARI TRADERS ,BULDHANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2, KHAMGAON

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

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

89,611/-. 3] Learned C.I.T.(A) erred in disallowing interest amounting to Rs.1,57,844/- U/s.40(a)(ia) of I.T.Act, 1961. 2 M/s. Tiwari Traders ITA no.193/Nag./2019 4] Learned C.I.T.(A) and A.O. both have not properly consider assessee's submission and various documents filed before them. 3] Appellant craves to urge additional grounds at the time of hearing

RAVINDRA KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE AKOLA , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 36)\(1)(iii) of the Act. 10. The Assessing Officer disallowed a part of the interest considering it as interest on capital not borrowed for the purpose of business on proportionate basis. The assessee had debited ` 34,15,880, on account of interest on unsecured loans of ` 1,81,14,226. The Assessing Officer considered 24.39 per 4 Ravindra

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

89,56,255 (plus value of land at Dhaba Rs.50,42,320 and investment in Plants & Equipment Rs.14.04.783) in both original as well as revised (though invalid) ITR/Audit report, not making claim of depreciation alternatively allowable u/s 32 on the capital expenditure incurred by the appellant on construction of the Warehouse in accordance with section 35AD(4), not disputing