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

Section 271(1)(c) and hence the said penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) is not justified and is directed to be deleted. Therefore, we direct to the delete the same. 12. In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 13. Now we take ITA No. 126/Nag/2021 for the A.Y.2015-16. In this appeal, the assessee has basically aggrieved

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

Section 271(1)(c) and hence the said penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) is not justified and is directed to be deleted. Therefore, we direct to the delete the same. 12. In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 13. Now we take ITA No. 126/Nag/2021 for the A.Y.2015-16. In this appeal, the assessee has basically aggrieved

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

271(1)(c) Tribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the grounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors, (ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged hundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index numbers with the Income-tax Department

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

271(1)(c) Tribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the grounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors, (ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged hundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index numbers with the Income-tax Department

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

271(1)(c) Tribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the grounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors, (ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged hundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index numbers with the Income-tax Department

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

271(1)(c) Tribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the grounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors, (ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged hundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index numbers with the Income-tax Department

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

271(1)(c) Tribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the grounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors, (ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged hundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index numbers with the Income-tax Department

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

271(1)(c) Tribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the grounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors, (ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged hundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index numbers with the Income-tax Department

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the AO did not find the explanation offered by the assessee satisfactory and stated that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus towards explaining the credit of Rs.15,00,000/-. We respectfully object to the above observations and allegations made by the AO as the same are based on conjectures

SHETKARI SOLVENT (INDIA) LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT C.C. 1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.137/Nag/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007–08 Shetkari Solvent (India) Ltd., Ug–7&8, Jagat Chambers, Near Ambedkar Sqr, Central Avenue, Bagadganj, Nagpur–440008. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aabcs0105N बनाम / V/S. Acit, Central Circle–1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. Assessee By : Shri Abhay Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri U. U. Kasar, Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Nagpur Dated 11.01.2012 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Revised Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :– “1. That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.5,79,60,000 On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases Of Soya Doc

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are separately initiated, for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars in respect of income chargeable to tax.” 5. Aggrieved with the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). On this issue, the CIT(A) recorded the reasoning in para 7 of her order and upheld the views

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

Penalty proceedings under section 27(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are hereby initiated.” 4. The appellant filed an appeal before the CIT (A), who has held as follows: “The AO in the assessment order held that on perusal of the return of income, it is seen that