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

10,47,680, after claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act amounting tors 46,57,11,248. The case was selected for scrutiny. By following due process, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 26/02/2016, assessing total income of ` 23,51,05,202. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271

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

10,47,680, after claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act amounting tors 46,57,11,248. The case was selected for scrutiny. By following due process, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 26/02/2016, assessing total income of ` 23,51,05,202. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271

M/S NAVAL K AGARWAL,NAGPUR vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

10. ITAT order in ITA No.1433 and 1432/Pn/2013 in the case of Shri Arun S. Agrawal vide order dated 26/06/2015 11. Hon'ble Bombay High Court order in ITA No. 76 of 2009 in the case of Mukesh Oedutta Gupta vide order dated 03/09/2010 1 6. Per contra learned D.R. relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 7. Upon

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

271-1. section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 2724, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub- section (1) or clause (b) or clause

M/S FUEL CORPORATION OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is ordered to be allowed

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

10% of the undisclosed income to the tune of ` 12.50 lakh. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who confirmed the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. ISSUE NO.1 4. Under the above said issue, the assessee has challenged the order passed by the learned

CHANDRA SURESH KOTHARI,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and also relied on the written submissions filed before the ld. CIT(A). For the cost of repetition, 3 ITA 125 & 126/NAG/2021_ Chandra Suresh Kothari Vs DCIT there

CHANDRA SURESH KOTHARI,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and also relied on the written submissions filed before the ld. CIT(A). For the cost of repetition, 3 ITA 125 & 126/NAG/2021_ Chandra Suresh Kothari Vs DCIT there

M/S ABHIJIT CONSTRUCTION CO.,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2007–08

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

20, High Court Society, SBI Road, Govind Nagar, Khamla, Nagpur and inventorised at item no. 1 of Annexure - "B". The page nos. 30 and 31 of item 1 of Annexure "B” seized is a receipt issued by Shri O.G. Bajaj of Devison Estates Pvt. Ltd. In these seized documents, payments are recorded mentioning the dates as well as amounts

BHAKTVATSAL SADGURU YOGIRAJ VASANTRAO GOPALRAO GHONGE MAHARAJ TRUST,WARDHA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

10. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. Assessee is a registered trust under Section 12A of the 1.T. Act, 1961 and also under the Public Trust Act. 2. In assessment order, addition is made by denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Act and disallowing the expenses towards the object of the trust

DCIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR vs. M/S TRISTER RETAIL CONCEPTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, department’s appeal stands dismissed

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

20,81,645/-. During the course of assessment proceedings by issuing show cause notice dated 04/12/2017, assessee was asked to explain why loss on sale of fixed assets debited as revenue expenditure and the same should not be disallowed 4 M/s. Tristar Retail Concepts Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.319/Nag./2024 as per the provisions of I. T. Act, 1961. In response

MOHD ZUBAIR ASHARAFI,NAGPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

271(1)(b) of the Act dated 09.09.2022 and\nconfirmed the penalty amount of Rs. 20,000/- for non compliance of notice u/s\n142(1) of the Act dated 30.06.2021 and 24.11.2021\n6. In the result, the appeal is Partly Allowed.\n4.\nThe learned Authorised Representative prayed that deletion of penalty\nof 20,000, is unwarranted in his case

INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD -4, AMRAVATI vs. SHRI MAHESH SHANKAR SORATE , DARYAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

20,000, which is other than by way of Account Payee Cheque or Account Payee Demand Draft hence, it is in contravention to the provisions of section 269T of the Act. Accordingly, the learned JCIT levied penalty under section 271E of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. 6. The case

ASHA VINOD TATTE,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 271D is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 7. Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.‖ 3. The core issue arising out of the aforesaid grounds of appeal relates to levy of penalty of ` 6,51,000, under Section 271-D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (―the Act‖) for the violation of provisions

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for 27 Gajanand Financial Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.126/Nag./2025 concealment of particulars of income, of the Income Tax Act is hereby initiated separately.” vi) There is no quarrel to the proposition that the Assessing Officer had definitely come into an opinion that Tapadia Polyester Pvt. Ltd. has introduced its own unaccounted income

M/S HIGH RISE CONSTRUCTION,,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD -1(5), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

20,301/- against which a deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act claimed. The AO vide order dated 24-02-2015, we note, that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act and the project was incomplete and denied deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. As matter stood thus, the AO also initiated proceedings

TAJSHREE AUTOWHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Rs. 32,26,000/- is disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee under the head 'Income from Other Sources'. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6 Tajshree Autowheels Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.400/Nag./2024

ABDULLABHAI HASANALI THROUGH L/H ZOHRABAI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-3,, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

penalty u/s. 271(1) (c). (7) That for any other ground with kind permission of Hon'ble members at the time of hearing of appeal. 3. From the above it is evident the core issue relates to the correctness of allowing by Assessing Officer the assessee’s claim of set off of brought forwarded long term capital loss relating

SHRI. ABDULLABHAI HASANALI,,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,-II, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

penalty u/s. 271(1) (c). (7) That for any other ground with kind permission of Hon'ble members at the time of hearing of appeal. 3. From the above it is evident the core issue relates to the correctness of allowing by Assessing Officer the assessee’s claim of set off of brought forwarded long term capital loss relating