SHRI RAJESH MOOLCHAND DAYARAMANI,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-8,, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

house has been reflected in balance sheet and details thereof have been submitted by assessee. Nothing is hidden by assessee. Particulars furnished are not found to be inaccurate. No concealment of income. Penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) is unsustainable. 5 Shri Rajesh Moolchand Dayaramani C) It is settled position of law that no penalty can be levied in respect

SHRI PRAKASH JIWANDAS WANJARI,NAGPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

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

house property and for his medical treatment. The assessee is therefore giving contradictory statements regarding the purpose o the cash loans and hence his explanation is not satisfactory. 20 With reference to this the appellant wishes to submit that he its already stated in his submission about the no knowledge of income tax act, he is facing such type

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

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

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

u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. Shri Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak vs. ACIT (OSD) ITA no. 368/Nag./2023 7] The assessee craves leave to amend, add or take a new ground or grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. The facts of the case of the assessee as culled out from

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S GIGEO CONSTRUCTION CO.PVT. LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

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

house property. 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 2. Before us, during the course of hearing, while going through the material available on record filed by the learned Authorised Representatives appearing for the assessee, it is evident that the assessee company had gone under insolvency proceeding under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S GIGEO CONSTRUCTION CO.PVT. LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

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

house property. 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 2. Before us, during the course of hearing, while going through the material available on record filed by the learned Authorised Representatives appearing for the assessee, it is evident that the assessee company had gone under insolvency proceeding under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

GIGEO CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3),, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

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

house property. 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 2. Before us, during the course of hearing, while going through the material available on record filed by the learned Authorised Representatives appearing for the assessee, it is evident that the assessee company had gone under insolvency proceeding under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code

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

house is not taxable u/s 23(4)(b) . Without prejudice to our above submission, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in estimating the annual letting value (ALV) of flat. The AO on the basis of monthly rent of Rs 7,91,805/- received by the appellant from commercial property in Prestige Obelisk, Bangalore estimated the monthly rent of Flat

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

house is not taxable u/s 23(4)(b) . Without prejudice to our above submission, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in estimating the annual letting value (ALV) of flat. The AO on the basis of monthly rent of Rs 7,91,805/- received by the appellant from commercial property in Prestige Obelisk, Bangalore estimated the monthly rent of Flat

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

house is not taxable u/s 23(4)(b) . Without prejudice to our above submission, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in estimating the annual letting value (ALV) of flat. The AO on the basis of monthly rent of Rs 7,91,805/- received by the appellant from commercial property in Prestige Obelisk, Bangalore estimated the monthly rent of Flat

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

house is not taxable u/s 23(4)(b) . Without prejudice to our above submission, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in estimating the annual letting value (ALV) of flat. The AO on the basis of monthly rent of Rs 7,91,805/- received by the appellant from commercial property in Prestige Obelisk, Bangalore estimated the monthly rent of Flat

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

house is not taxable u/s 23(4)(b) . Without prejudice to our above submission, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in estimating the annual letting value (ALV) of flat. The AO on the basis of monthly rent of Rs 7,91,805/- received by the appellant from commercial property in Prestige Obelisk, Bangalore estimated the monthly rent of Flat

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

house is not taxable u/s 23(4)(b) . Without prejudice to our above submission, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in estimating the annual letting value (ALV) of flat. The AO on the basis of monthly rent of Rs 7,91,805/- received by the appellant from commercial property in Prestige Obelisk, Bangalore estimated the monthly rent of Flat

SHRI PRAVEEN MANOHAR GHODKHANDE,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2),, NAGPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.1.35 lakhs imposed by the Assessing Officer in his order dated 16.06.2011 as upheld in the CIT(A) order as follows : “4.0. Appellant’s submissions along with penalty order have been considered carefully. Assessment order as well as records have also been perused. As per his return, the appellant has claimed exemption u/s

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR. 8, NAGPUR vs. M/S V.D. KANAL, NAGPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

property at plot No. Q-9, Laxminagar, Nagpur. It therefore, becomes clear that the claim of Rs.96.50 lacs under the head short term capital gain by the firm is a well thought transaction. Subsequent, submission to the contrary, are motivated to achieve the commitment of additional income declared at the time of survey. Hence it is not accepted.” Further

M/S V.D.KANAL,NAGPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -8, NAGPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

property at plot No. Q-9, Laxminagar, Nagpur. It therefore, becomes clear that the claim of Rs.96.50 lacs under the head short term capital gain by the firm is a well thought transaction. Subsequent, submission to the contrary, are motivated to achieve the commitment of additional income declared at the time of survey. Hence it is not accepted.” Further

VAISHALI ARVIND TAYADE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, AMARAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

property and no evidence has been furnished to take any alternate view. 2. The loan taker, as per the interest certificate, is clearly her husband. 3. There is no evidence either of the house purchase/construction being completed within five years from the end of the financial year in which capital was borrowed. 6.2 Assessee also claimed

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

House, 425 Mumbai-04). On 6-5-10 the assessee issued che.No.265949 amounting to Rs.20 lakhs being cheque to Daksh Diamonds towards refund of loans. Further, on 22-6- 10 the assessee issued che.No.263943 amounting to Rs.30 lakhs being cheque to Daksh Diamonds towards refund of loans. The transactions were routed through Vijay Bank. The ledger confirmation

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

House, 425 Mumbai-04). On 6-5-10 the assessee issued che.No.265949 amounting to Rs.20 lakhs being cheque to Daksh Diamonds towards refund of loans. Further, on 22-6- 10 the assessee issued che.No.263943 amounting to Rs.30 lakhs being cheque to Daksh Diamonds towards refund of loans. The transactions were routed through Vijay Bank. The ledger confirmation