M/S SMS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,NAGPUR vs. D.C.I.T. CENTRALCIRCLE 2(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

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

96,757 under section 80IA of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised computation of income on 26/12/2008, claiming deduction under section 80IA of the Act of ` 3,45,03,153. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act on 31/12/2008, on a total income of ` 15,25,92,530, after allowing deduction

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

section 201(1) of the Act by Finance Act, 2012, has no retrospective effect and the case laws relied upon by the assessee are not relevant with the facts of the case and therefore, the learned CIT(A) did not 4 Ahsaan Qureshi ITA no.323/Nag./2023 find any merit and held that the Assessing Officer was right in adding

MR. UMESH POREDDIWAR,GADCHIROLI vs. I.T.O.(TDS) WARD -2, CHANDRAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Umesh Vasantrao Poreddiwar Vs. The Ito, Rampuri Ward,Gadchiroli, Distt. Ward-2, Aaykar Bhawan Gadchiroli Railway Station Road,Chandrapur Pan No.:Achpp 6517 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Smt. Veena Agarwal (Ca) Shri Abhisekh Kumar, Adv Revenue By :Smt. Agnes P Thomas (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-4, Nagpur Dated 19/02/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2011-12 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal.

96,325/-. 4. The AO erred in disallowing the interest amounting to Rs.52,505/- u/s 50(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act. 2.1 At the outset of the hearing of the appeal of the assessee, the Bench noted that there is delay of 105 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assesse

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

section 35AD(4), not disputing the factum or quantum (except disallowance of construction expenses of Rs 1.90.70,349 discussed in succeeding paragraphs) of investment in construction of the warehouse by the appellant and its in principle eligibility for deduction u/s 35AD by the AO, etc, are the various other factors which substantiate the genuineness et the claim of the appellant

M/S SHREE STEEL CQASTINGS PVT. LTD ,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, NAGPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrym/S. Shree Steel Castings Dcit, Circle-1, Nagpur Pvt. Ltd., T/38/1, Midc, Vs. Hingna Road, Nagpur. Pan: Aaccs 4071 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

96,000/- (3,01,000 + 90,300 + 45,04,700) and added the same to the income of the Assessee. The AO also made addition of Rs. 3,58,244/- on account of disallowance of interest by picking revise of the provision of 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short, ‘Rules’) read with section

THE BULDHANA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD ,BULDHANA vs. DCIT, AKOLA CIRCLE , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed in the assessment order. This amounts to double assessment. Such a claim was also there in the assessment year 2007-08 and the same has been allowed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Revenue has not filed appeal before the Tribunal. The claim was accepted in first appeal. 3 The Buldhana District Central Co–operative Bank

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

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

disallowance whatsoever is made in the same. Further, no notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued for conducting assessment. In view of above, assessment of the appellant is completed and had attained finality. The assessment was not abated at the time of initiation of search action u/s 132 of the Act and as a result

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

disallowance whatsoever is made in the same. Further, no notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued for conducting assessment. In view of above, assessment of the appellant is completed and had attained finality. The assessment was not abated at the time of initiation of search action u/s 132 of the Act and as a result

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

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

disallowance whatsoever is made in the same. Further, no notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued for conducting assessment. In view of above, assessment of the appellant is completed and had attained finality. The assessment was not abated at the time of initiation of search action u/s 132 of the Act and as a result

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

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

disallowance whatsoever is made in the same. Further, no notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued for conducting assessment. In view of above, assessment of the appellant is completed and had attained finality. The assessment was not abated at the time of initiation of search action u/s 132 of the Act and as a result

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

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

disallowance whatsoever is made in the same. Further, no notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued for conducting assessment. In view of above, assessment of the appellant is completed and had attained finality. The assessment was not abated at the time of initiation of search action u/s 132 of the Act and as a result

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

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

disallowance whatsoever is made in the same. Further, no notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued for conducting assessment. In view of above, assessment of the appellant is completed and had attained finality. The assessment was not abated at the time of initiation of search action u/s 132 of the Act and as a result

NARAYAN MAHADEORAO DHAWANE,MAHARASHTRA, NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD -5(1), MAHARASHTRA, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

disallowance of deduction u/s 54F of Rs.3,44,148/- and addition u/s 50C of Rs.1,04,480/-is incorrect, illegal, bad in law and without natural justice and the same is to be deleted. 4. The addition of Total Rs.4,48,628/- levied on appellant is incorrect, illegal, bad in law and without natural justice and the same

ASSISTANT COMISSIONER CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHRIGOPAL RAMESHKUMAR SALES PVT. LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance under those heads as per law. 18. That with respect to the addition of ` 16,42,713, it is the submission of the assessee that the said amount pertains to payments made by farmers/agriculturist to the labourers directly for unloading charges without any recourse to the Assessee and as such the addition on this count deserves 10 Shrigopal Rameshkumar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRAVATI & CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CIRCLE , AMRAVATI C, AMRAVATI vs. M/S A.M.G TRANSFORMER CONSORIUME , CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

96,900, by impugned assessment order dated 06/09/2016, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act. This included an addition of ` 20,03,712, being the difference of remuneration paid to partners as claimed in the return of income amounting to ` 20,03,712, being the difference of remuneration paid to partners as claimed in the return

SUNRISE STRUCTURALS & ENGINEERING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roysunrise Structural & Acit/Dcit, Circle-4, Engineering P. Ltd., A10, Vs Nagpur Hingna Midc, Nagpur (Urban), Nagpur-440016 Pan : Aaccs 3220 M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R

disallowed in the assessment framed by invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act. It was submitted that there is no merit in the appeal filed by assessee and therefore addition made by the Ld. AO be sustained and upheld. He further submitted that assessee has submitted letter wherein ground as to validity of notice issued

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

disallowing the deemed dividend of ` 6,49,70,741 [` 6,46,05,741 (+) ` 3,65,000] (Revised after rectification to ` 1,72,80,539). “56. I have considered the assessment order, remand report and submissions of the assessee. The assessee's reliance on judgements in his submission is also considered. It is observed that the deemed dividend added in order

ASHOKKUMAR GOKULCHAND SANANDA,BULDHANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royashokkumar Gokulchand Acit, Akola Circle, Akola Sananda, Rana Traders, Vs Gandhi Chowk, Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhan, Khamgaon Pan : Adpps 755I L Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2026

section 35(1) of I.T. Act 1961 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference. “Explanation.—The deduction, to which the assessee is entitled in respect of any sum paid to a 93[research association], university, college or other institution to which clause (ii) or clause (iii) applies, shall not be denied merely on the ground that, subsequent to the payment