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

disallowance of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act was directed to be deleted. The relevant portion of the findings of the learned CIT(A), vide Page-14 to 38, of the impugned order are hereby reproduced herein below for ready reference:-\"7\nGround Nos. 2 To 9 : The appellant has challenged the addition made

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

section 142 and 143 clearly suggests that the assessing officer may also act on the material gathered by him and the word „material/ clearly shows that the assessing officer is not fettered by the technical rules of evidence and the like, and that he may act on material which may not strictly speaking be accepted evidence in court

DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

95,265/- (which was neither debited to Profit & Loss Account, nor claimed deduction out of the income of any previous assessment years), the impact of ICDS of ` 4,43,462, and lesser deduction claimed under section 80P of the Act to the tune of ` 9,84,733, even if the disallowances

DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

95,265/- (which was neither debited to Profit & Loss Account, nor claimed deduction out of the income of any previous assessment years), the impact of ICDS of ` 4,43,462, and lesser deduction claimed under section 80P of the Act to the tune of ` 9,84,733, even if the disallowances

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

disallowed the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4)(iv) of the Act. Shri Sanjay Shankarrao Jadhao ITA no.198/Mum./2023 8. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed an elaborated written reply along with Form no.10CCB and relied upon certain judicial pronouncements which are noted by the learned CIT(A) in his order. The learned CIT(A), after considering

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

disallowance of interest under section 57(ul) made by tHPAOP 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) erred by not admitting additional evidence under rule 46A 2 Shri Nitin Madanlal Khandelwal ITA no.55/Nag./2024 3. The appellant craves leave to add or alter any other ground that may be taken at the time

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER , NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

95,19, 170/-, for A.Yrs. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 respectively. The assessee is a firm engaged in a business of development of real estate. An Action u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of Bajoria- Agrawal group on 02/12/2014. During the course of search action, various Incriminating documents were found

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

95,19, 170/-, for A.Yrs. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 respectively. The assessee is a firm engaged in a business of development of real estate. An Action u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of Bajoria- Agrawal group on 02/12/2014. During the course of search action, various Incriminating documents were found

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

95,19, 170/-, for A.Yrs. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 respectively. The assessee is a firm engaged in a business of development of real estate. An Action u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of Bajoria- Agrawal group on 02/12/2014. During the course of search action, various Incriminating documents were found

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA RADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

95,19, 170/-, for A.Yrs. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 respectively. The assessee is a firm engaged in a business of development of real estate. An Action u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of Bajoria- Agrawal group on 02/12/2014. During the course of search action, various Incriminating documents were found

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

95,19, 170/-, for A.Yrs. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 respectively. The assessee is a firm engaged in a business of development of real estate. An Action u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of Bajoria- Agrawal group on 02/12/2014. During the course of search action, various Incriminating documents were found

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

95,19, 170/-, for A.Yrs. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 respectively. The assessee is a firm engaged in a business of development of real estate. An Action u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of Bajoria- Agrawal group on 02/12/2014. During the course of search action, various Incriminating documents were found

VIVEKANAND NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PULGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, WARDHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

95 Nominal Members having interest more than ` 10,000, aggregating to ` 19,47,890. The Assessing Officer further asked the assessee to deduct TDS under section 194A of the Act, which was not done by the assessee. The assessee was aware about the provisions of TDS as it is evident from audit report in Form No 3CD that the assessee

VIVEKANAND NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PULGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, WARDHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

95 Nominal Members having interest more than ` 10,000, aggregating to ` 19,47,890. The Assessing Officer further asked the assessee to deduct TDS under section 194A of the Act, which was not done by the assessee. The assessee was aware about the provisions of TDS as it is evident from audit report in Form No 3CD that the assessee

VIVEKANAND NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PULGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, WARDHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

95 Nominal Members having interest more than ` 10,000, aggregating to ` 19,47,890. The Assessing Officer further asked the assessee to deduct TDS under section 194A of the Act, which was not done by the assessee. The assessee was aware about the provisions of TDS as it is evident from audit report in Form No 3CD that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. RADHIKA METALS AND MINERALS, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section\n69C of IT Act by disallowing payment made to labour contractors. The AO,\nduring assessment proceeding noticed that the appellant has incurred\nexpenditure of Rs 85,55,612/- towards mining expenses. These expenses are\non account of extraction of manganese ore to following labour contractors-\n1.\nN. Appalla Ramalu\n2.\nS. Hussain\n*40,95

RAVINDRA MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE , 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

disallowed the entire expenses by stating that interest bearing funds was used for non-business activity. In this regard we humbly wish to submit that the interest-bearing funds i.e., secured as well as unsecured are used for business of the related concern (i.e.) private limited company Khandelwal Jewellers Akola Private Limited. 3.3 The term for business purpose, used

ASHA SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is party allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Smt. Asha Shankarlal Tanwani Vs. The Acit 01, Shankar Nagar, Pandhuna Central Circle 2(1) Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Nagpur Pan No.:Bnvpt 1763 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 / 6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Aforesaid Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

95,460/- on account of business income shown by the assessee which was treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act in the hands of the assessee. The assessee also submitted the remaining amounttheassessee has estimated income for the assessment year 2019-20 at Rs.15,00,000/- and paid advance tax on the aforesaid income before the action

ANKIT SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Ankit Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Biapt 4756 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 / 6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

disallowance of unsubstantiated sundry creditors. Impugned order was liable to be set aside Appeal of department allowed. The finding of the said case is quite distinguishable from the Appellant’s case as in the case law the additions were made on the basis of discrepancy found in the details submitted by the assessee. However, in the Appellant’s case