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

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

92,17,850. The assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act for an amount of Rs. 2,49,12,652. The 4 Smt. AanjuSaraf assessment under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act was passed on 31st December 2009, assessing income at Rs. 10,41,30,497. The Tribunal quashed the order passed under section

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

92,17,850. The assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act for an amount of Rs. 2,49,12,652. The 4 Smt. AanjuSaraf assessment under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act was passed on 31st December 2009, assessing income at Rs. 10,41,30,497. The Tribunal quashed the order passed under section

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

92,17,850. The assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act for an amount of Rs. 2,49,12,652. The 4 Smt. AanjuSaraf assessment under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act was passed on 31st December 2009, assessing income at Rs. 10,41,30,497. The Tribunal quashed the order passed under section

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

92,17,850. The assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act for an amount of Rs. 2,49,12,652. The 4 Smt. AanjuSaraf assessment under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act was passed on 31st December 2009, assessing income at Rs. 10,41,30,497. The Tribunal quashed the order passed under section

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

92,17,850. The assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act for an amount of Rs. 2,49,12,652. The 4 Smt. AanjuSaraf assessment under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act was passed on 31st December 2009, assessing income at Rs. 10,41,30,497. The Tribunal quashed the order passed under section

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

92,17,850. The assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act for an amount of Rs. 2,49,12,652. The 4 Smt. AanjuSaraf assessment under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act was passed on 31st December 2009, assessing income at Rs. 10,41,30,497. The Tribunal quashed the order passed under section

SANJAY GULABCHAND GUPTA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

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

disallowed as deduction and added back to the returned income of the assessee. Penalty u/s 270A(9) initiated separately for misreporting of income. 5. After perusal of uploaded documents, the total income of assessee is computed as under:– Amount in (`) Particulars Nil Income as per section 143(1) Addition as discussed in Para–3 (specified 92

ACIT, CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. CHANDRAPUR DISTT. CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD , CHANDRAPUR

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

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

92,437/- at the rate of 10% being statutory allowance for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The said 10% amount arose from aggregate average of advances made by the assessee's rural branches. The Assessing Officer framed a regular assessment on 24.11.2011 disallowing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI & CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE, AMRAVATI vs. CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD., CHANDRAPUR

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

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

92,437/- at the rate of 10% being statutory allowance for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The said 10% amount arose from aggregate average of advances made by the assessee's rural branches. The Assessing Officer framed a regular assessment on 24.11.2011 disallowing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. M/S CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPRATIVE BANK LIMTED , CHANDRAPUR

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

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

92,437/- at the rate of 10% being statutory allowance for bad and doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The said 10% amount arose from aggregate average of advances made by the assessee's rural branches. The Assessing Officer framed a regular assessment on 24.11.2011 disallowing

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

disallowed deduction claimed in excess of the provision made in the books of accounts by the appellant for provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts u/s.36(1) (viia). As per the AO, the provision for bad and doubtful debts on account of 7.5% of total income and 10% of rural advances is to be allowed only if the assessee had made

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

disallowed deduction claimed in excess of the provision made in the books of accounts by the appellant for provision for Bad and Doubtful Debts u/s.36(1) (viia). As per the AO, the provision for bad and doubtful debts on account of 7.5% of total income and 10% of rural advances is to be allowed only if the assessee had made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE , AKOLA vs. AKOLA URBAN CO-OPRATIVE BANK LTD , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on total loss of ` (-) 1,84,80,597, by making addition of ` 10,54,71,710, on account of disallowance of loss on sale of NPAs to Asset Reconstruction Company and also made disallowance of expenses aggregating to ` 13,92

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

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

section 57(iii) of the Act. It was not to earn income itself but to meet the requirements of KJAPL. Thus the disallowance of ` 50,09,820 made by the A.O. sustained and the appeal on Ground no.1 and 2 are thus dismissed.” 5. The learned Authorised Representative for the assessee could not produce any single document to buttress

RAMKRUSHNA ZILBAJI THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WRAD -4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

92 taxmann.com 324 (Delhi) : 2. IT : Where cash deposits were made in account of assessee and assessee had claimed that said payment was against agreement to sell, but he had not given any explanation for same and also failed to establish financial capacity of proposed buyers of his property, addition under section 68 was called for 3. Ravinder Kumar

ACIT, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI vs. CHANDRAPUR DIST CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

92,08,209 5. The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept the deduction claimed under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and restricted the claim of allowable deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act to ` 2 crore, which resulted into addition of ` 62.92 crore and the disallowance

AHSAAN QURESHI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

disallowed the amount of ` 1 lakh, under section 40a(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") as assessee failed to deduct the TDS as per provisions of section 194H of the Act. The learned CIT(A) held that the in view of the amendment made in section 40a(ia) of the Act and in section