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

271(1)(c) of the Act, is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard the rival arguments, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the claim made by the assessee is in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and the allowability

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. M/S CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPRATIVE BANK LIMTED , 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

271(1)(c) of the Act, is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. We have heard the rival arguments, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the claim made by the assessee is in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) of the Act and the allowability

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

GORAKSHAN SABHA, NAGPUR,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MOF, GOI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92 & 91/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Gorakshan Sabha, The Income Tax Officer, Near Hitawada Press, V Ward Exemption, Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, S Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aaatg2927L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Common Intimation Of Outstanding Demand Order For A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Facts Of Both Appeals Are Similar, We Take Up Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 As

13-14 (A.Y. 2014-15) u/s 200A r.w.s. 234E, of the IT Act,1961 without appreciating the law and facts of the case.(ii)That the provi. for levy late fee u/s 200A(l)(c) r.w.s. 234E was introduced vide F.A. 2015 w.e.f. 01/06/2015, as such the order u/s 200A is illegal and without jurisdiction.(iii)That in absence

GORAKSHAN SABHA, NAGPUR,WARDHA ROAD, NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MOF,GOI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92 & 91/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Gorakshan Sabha, The Income Tax Officer, Near Hitawada Press, V Ward Exemption, Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, S Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aaatg2927L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Common Intimation Of Outstanding Demand Order For A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Facts Of Both Appeals Are Similar, We Take Up Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 As

13-14 (A.Y. 2014-15) u/s 200A r.w.s. 234E, of the IT Act,1961 without appreciating the law and facts of the case.(ii)That the provi. for levy late fee u/s 200A(l)(c) r.w.s. 234E was introduced vide F.A. 2015 w.e.f. 01/06/2015, as such the order u/s 200A is illegal and without jurisdiction.(iii)That in absence

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

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 17. – do – 1,31,000 22.05.2012 Cash 18. – do – 2,46,000 23.05.2012 Cash 19. – do – 52,000 26.05.2012 Cash 20. – do – 45,000 26.05.2012 Cash

SUNITA ASHOK BHAIYA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR

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

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

u/s 80IB(11A). The AO is justified in denying the deduction claimed, through his speaking orders. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal are dismissed and addition made at Rs.1,91,472/-, 3,82,197/- 3,83,418/- and 7,03,874/- for AY 2010-11, 2011- 12. 2012-13 and AY 2013-14 respectively, are confirmed and upheld.” 8. Meanwhile

SUNITA ASHOK BHAIYA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-5, NAGPUR

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

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

u/s 80IB(11A). The AO is justified in denying the deduction claimed, through his speaking orders. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal are dismissed and addition made at Rs.1,91,472/-, 3,82,197/- 3,83,418/- and 7,03,874/- for AY 2010-11, 2011- 12. 2012-13 and AY 2013-14 respectively, are confirmed and upheld.” 8. Meanwhile

SUNITA ASHOK BHAIYA ,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR

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

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

u/s 80IB(11A). The AO is justified in denying the deduction claimed, through his speaking orders. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal are dismissed and addition made at Rs.1,91,472/-, 3,82,197/- 3,83,418/- and 7,03,874/- for AY 2010-11, 2011- 12. 2012-13 and AY 2013-14 respectively, are confirmed and upheld.” 8. Meanwhile

SUNITA ASHOK BHAIYA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR

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

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

u/s 80IB(11A). The AO is justified in denying the deduction claimed, through his speaking orders. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal are dismissed and addition made at Rs.1,91,472/-, 3,82,197/- 3,83,418/- and 7,03,874/- for AY 2010-11, 2011- 12. 2012-13 and AY 2013-14 respectively, are confirmed and upheld.” 8. Meanwhile

BHAVIKA GUNWANT PATEL,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee are allowed

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) at Rs.33,255/- and the learned CIT(A) is highly unjustified in confirming the action of the AO on the basis that the assessee accepted the original assessment order. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and the explanation offered, the action of both the learned authorities in further holding that

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

13, two case laws and observed that the assessee is required to explain source of source and that the proviso introduced in Section 68 is applicable retrospectively. The AO failed to realize that proviso is applicable to the company assesses and not to individual assessee and that too in case amount is received on account of issue of shares. Thus

NAV VIDYA NIKETAN SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,AMRAVATI vs. ITO WARD2 EXEMP, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.393 & 397/Nag/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2010-11 Nav Vidya Niketan Shikshan The Income Tax Officer, Sanstha, V Ward-2 Exemption, 1, Ambapethdhabaliya S Nagpur. Niwas, Ambapeth, Amravati – 444601 Pan: Aabtn1915G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Atal – Ca(Ar) Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Separate Penalty Orders Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Both Dated 13.06.2017 For A.Y.2012-

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; both dated 13.06.2017 for A.Y.2012- ITA Nos.393 & 397/NAG/2023 Nav Vidya Niketan Shikshan Sanstha [A] 13 and 2011-12 respectively. Since facts of both appeals are similar, we take up appeal for A.Y.2010-11 as lead case, we proceed to dispose of these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake

NAV VIDYA NIKETAN SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,AMRAVATI vs. ITO WARD 2 EXEMP NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.393 & 397/Nag/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 & 2010-11 Nav Vidya Niketan Shikshan The Income Tax Officer, Sanstha, V Ward-2 Exemption, 1, Ambapethdhabaliya S Nagpur. Niwas, Ambapeth, Amravati – 444601 Pan: Aabtn1915G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Atal – Ca(Ar) Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Separate Penalty Orders Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Both Dated 13.06.2017 For A.Y.2012-

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; both dated 13.06.2017 for A.Y.2012- ITA Nos.393 & 397/NAG/2023 Nav Vidya Niketan Shikshan Sanstha [A] 13 and 2011-12 respectively. Since facts of both appeals are similar, we take up appeal for A.Y.2010-11 as lead case, we proceed to dispose of these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

u/s 147. 7. Penalties Imposed Without Just Cause: Penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F are unjustified, as the failure to file the return was due to operational shutdown and not due to any intention to evade tax. Moreover, taxes had already been paid in excess. 8. Procedural Lapses in Appeal Proceedings: The Learned

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCIT ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

u/s 147. 7. Penalties Imposed Without Just Cause: Penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F are unjustified, as the failure to file the return was due to operational shutdown and not due to any intention to evade tax. Moreover, taxes had already been paid in excess. 8. Procedural Lapses in Appeal Proceedings: The Learned

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR PRASHANT NATWARLAL LAKHANI,NAGPUR vs. DCITACIT CIRCLE-3 , NAGPUR

In the result, all the captioned seven appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

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

u/s 147. 7. Penalties Imposed Without Just Cause: Penalty proceedings initiated under Sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F are unjustified, as the failure to file the return was due to operational shutdown and not due to any intention to evade tax. Moreover, taxes had already been paid in excess. 8. Procedural Lapses in Appeal Proceedings: The Learned