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

2)(v), the claim made by the assesse u/s 36(1)(viia) in the Return of Income in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts is deliberate and intentional without any regard to the provisions of Law. Hence, there is no doubt that the deduction claimed in the Return in excess of the provision created in its books

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

2)(v), the claim made by the assesse u/s 36(1)(viia) in the Return of Income in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts is deliberate and intentional without any regard to the provisions of Law. Hence, there is no doubt that the deduction claimed in the Return in excess of the provision created in its books

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..

Section 271 (1) (C) of the Act. It was further held that in case there is nothing to the contrary in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act in the absence of any specific statement about the manner in which such income has been derived, it can be inferred that such undisclosed income was derived from the business

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was further held that in case there is nothing to the contrary in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act in the absence of any specific statement about the manner in which such income has been derived, it can be inferred that such undisclosed income was derived from the business

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB of the Act in the notice, it does not talk anything about the provision of section 271AAB. Certainly, such notice has a fatal error and technically is not a correct notice in the eyes of law because

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Except mentioning the Section 271AAB of the Act in the notice, it does not talk anything about the provision of section 271AAB. Certainly, such notice has a fatal error and technically is not a correct notice in the eyes of law because

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

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 21. – do – 1,76,000 30.05.2012 Cash 22. – do – 3,80,000 31.05.2012 Cash 23. – do – 1,53,000 01.06.2012 Cash 24. – do – 2,50,000 04.06.2012 Cash

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

17,39,54,837, as addition on account of interest accrued but not due on Government and other securities, ` 2,68,07,020, as disallowance on account of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and addition of ` 2,77,22,160 Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank A.Y. 2014–15 & 2015–16 on account of bad debts written

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

17,39,54,837, as addition on account of interest accrued but not due on Government and other securities, ` 2,68,07,020, as disallowance on account of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and addition of ` 2,77,22,160 Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank A.Y. 2014–15 & 2015–16 on account of bad debts written

NAGESHWARA CHARITABLE TRUST,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, EXEMPTION, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), it was independent advice given by our consultant who was recently appointed and so an appeal was filed by the secretary in the interest of the Appellant Trust. Appellant thought that it would not be proper to file the Appeal against scrutiny order without waiting for the result of interest waiver application. After being

NAGESHWARA CHARITABLE TRUST,NAGPUR vs. ITO WD 3, EXEMP, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty order u/s 271(1)(c), it was independent advice given by our consultant who was recently appointed and so an appeal was filed by the secretary in the interest of the Appellant Trust. Appellant thought that it would not be proper to file the Appeal against scrutiny order without waiting for the result of interest waiver application. After being

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL- CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. SHRI YASHWANT AJABRAO KHODKE, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated for concealment of above income. 6 Shri Yashwant Ajabrao Khodke ITA no.6/Nag./2024 8. With the above comments, the total income of the assessee is computed as under: - Income as per return ` 42,17,640 Add: Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C ` 2,17,00,000 Total assessed income ` 2,59,17

I.T.O. WARD -2, YAVATMAL vs. SHRI AMOL ASHOK NILAWAR, YAVATMAL

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2008-

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Ito, Ward-2, Shri Amol Ashok Nilawar, Patrakar Colony, Datta Chowk, Yavatmal – 445001 Yavatmal – 445001 Vs. Pan: Abwpn6625K

17,029/- levied under the said section. 2. The revenue has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT (A) on the following grounds:- 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT (A) erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271

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

17,10,000, instead of ` 5,57,10,000, leading to short determination of income by ` 4.60 crore. He vehemently averted that the revision order under section 263 of the Act need not be disturbed as the Assessing Officer has himself submitted the proposal under section 263 of the Act on this issue. 10. We have extended our careful

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 u/s. 271(1)(C) being premature is not being adjudicated. 17. As a result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.’’ 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR strongly relied on the order of the AO 2.4 On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on the order

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

17 of the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) is felt necessary to reproduce herein below:- \"That the learned AO erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs.15,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The source of amount received as unsecured loan is explained and fully substantiated by legal and cogent

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

17\nof the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) is felt necessary to\nreproduce herein below:-\n\"That the learned AO erred in law and on facts in making addition of\nRs.15,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The source of amount\nreceived as unsecured loan is explained and fully substantiated by legal