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

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

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..

15-10-2012 and pertains to assessment year 2009-10. The grounds of appeal read as under : 1. The order imposing penalty u/s 271AAA is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 2. That on the fact and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -1 erred in confirming penalty imposed u/s 271AAA of Income

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

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

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

15. Assessee hereby further submits that there is no doubt that share premium receipt is always a capital receipt (CIT v Stellar 251 ITR 263 (SC); Lowry v. Consolidated African Selection Trust 8 ITR Suppl 88). However, it is only because of the deeming fiction provided in such sections i.e. section 68 or 56(2)(viib) that in certain circumstances

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

15,44,910. The Assessing Officer concluded the assessment under section 143(3) r/w section 153A of the Act on 31st December 2013, assessing income at ` 2,05,83,440. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposing penalty of ` 30,74,550, observing as under:– “The assessee group has paid huge

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

15,92,565, claimed towards the object of the trust as exemption under section 11 had been denied. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated and a show cause notice was issued and served on the assessee. Thereafter, the learned CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in denying the exemption under section

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

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

15 & 2015–16 From aforesaid facts, intension of Parliament is very much clear and deduction under section 80P is not allowable to Regional Rural Bank and any cooperative bank. 5. However, it should be kept in mind that 80P (1) and 80P (2) (1) shall never be read in isolation rather it should always be read in association with

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

15 & 2015–16 From aforesaid facts, intension of Parliament is very much clear and deduction under section 80P is not allowable to Regional Rural Bank and any cooperative bank. 5. However, it should be kept in mind that 80P (1) and 80P (2) (1) shall never be read in isolation rather it should always be read in association with

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

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 21. – do – 1,76,000 30.05.2012 Cash 22. – do – 3,80,000 31.05.2012 Cash

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

15.\n2.\nIn its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:-\n“1. The learned CIT(A) NFAC passed penalty order u/s. 271(1)(b) is illegal,\ninvalid and bad in law;\n2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) NFAC erred\nin confirming penalty imposed U/s. 271(1)(b) amounting

ADITI EXPRESS CARGO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,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,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. 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