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

27,468. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of ` 1,30,99,807, on account of loss on sale of fixed assets worth ` 4,02,50,000, and the demand was raised. 4. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted the penalty imposed of ` 1,30,99,807, under section 271

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

10. – do – 3,30,000 07.05.2012 Cash 11. – do – 1,77,000 10.05.2012 Cash 12. Shri T.B. Bagdi 55,000 12.05.2012 Cash 13. – do – 2,65,000 12.05.2012 Cash 14. – do – 2,27,000 14.05.2012 Cash 15. – do – 2,20,000 19.05.2012 Cash 16. – do – 80,000 21.05.2012 Shri Mahesh Shankar Sorate ITA no.250/Nag./2018 Cash

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

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

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

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 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

27 Shri Sanjay Dhanraj Jain ITA no.53, to 59/Nag./2024 accounts without reference to any search material is not sustainable u/s 153A. We rely on the judgement of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Dinesh Salecha Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 5165, 5166, 5167/Mum./2018 dated 1-1-2021 (5) We have to respectfully object to the observations and would

ACIT ,CIRCLE (EXEMPTION ),NAGPUR , NAGPUR vs. M/S SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL ,AMRAVAI , AMRAVATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Acit, Vs. M/S. Sipnashikshan Prasarak Mandal Circle (Exemption), Badnera Road Amravati Amravati Pan No.:Aacts 1266 J Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shripiyushkolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shrihimeshdemble (Ca) 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 Department Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-4, Nagpur Dated 27/03/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 Wherein The Department Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)((c) are initiated separately forfurnishing inaccurate particulars of taxable income. In view of the above discussion, the total income is computed as under : Total Income : NIL The corpus donation to the extent, it is treated as anonymous at Rs 4,27,87,845/- is taxedu/s 115BBC of Income Tax Act separately.’’ 9 ACIT, CIR (EXEMPTION

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

10 lakhs. Subsequently there is note that Rs. 20 lakhs received on 24. The same can be seen as payment from the account of Omega Industries on 24th. Similarly. Rs. 20 lakhs is mentioned as received in Chattisgarh. The same is duly found paid from the Bank Account of Omega Industries, Chattisgar Below these notifications is again the reconciliation

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

10 lakhs. Subsequently there is note that Rs. 20 lakhs received on 24. The same can be seen as payment from the account of Omega Industries on 24th. Similarly. Rs. 20 lakhs is mentioned as received in Chattisgarh. The same is duly found paid from the Bank Account of Omega Industries, Chattisgar Below these notifications is again the reconciliation

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

10 lakhs. Subsequently there is note that Rs. 20 lakhs received on 24. The same can be seen as payment from the account of Omega Industries on 24th. Similarly. Rs. 20 lakhs is mentioned as received in Chattisgarh. The same is duly found paid from the Bank Account of Omega Industries, Chattisgar Below these notifications is again the reconciliation

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

10 lakhs. Subsequently there is note that Rs. 20 lakhs received on 24. The same can be seen as payment from the account of Omega Industries on 24th. Similarly. Rs. 20 lakhs is mentioned as received in Chattisgarh. The same is duly found paid from the Bank Account of Omega Industries, Chattisgar Below these notifications is again the reconciliation

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

27, the Supreme Court held at page 51 that income can be said to accrue or arise when there is a right to receive the same. At page 52, the Supreme Court held: “……. A debt must have come into existence and he must have acquired a right to receive the payment. Unless and until his contribution or parenthood is effective

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

27, the Supreme Court held at page 51 that income can be said to accrue or arise when there is a right to receive the same. At page 52, the Supreme Court held: “……. A debt must have come into existence and he must have acquired a right to receive the payment. Unless and until his contribution or parenthood is effective

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

27, whereby, as per order passed by the NCLT, pending proceedings before the Tribunal has been prohibited. The relevant part of the order dated 04/06/2024, passed by the NCLT is reproduced below:– “ORDER This application bearing C.P. (IB) No. 1180/MB/2022 filed under Section 7 of the Code by the Financial Creditor for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in respect

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

27, whereby, as per order passed by the NCLT, pending proceedings before the Tribunal has been prohibited. The relevant part of the order dated 04/06/2024, passed by the NCLT is reproduced below:– “ORDER This application bearing C.P. (IB) No. 1180/MB/2022 filed under Section 7 of the Code by the Financial Creditor for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in respect

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

27, whereby, as per order passed by the NCLT, pending proceedings before the Tribunal has been prohibited. The relevant part of the order dated 04/06/2024, passed by the NCLT is reproduced below:– “ORDER This application bearing C.P. (IB) No. 1180/MB/2022 filed under Section 7 of the Code by the Financial Creditor for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) in respect

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act are initiated separately.” 27 Smt. AanjuSaraf 41. Ld AR on the other hand submitted the observations of Ld CIT(A) from the appellate order, wherein the learned CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, confirmed the order