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

19. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income to the tune of Rs. 39,07,11,248/- (i.e. Rs. 465711248- Rs. 7,50,00,000/-) and as such has committed default within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Thus, it is a fit case

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

penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act may be dropped as there is no concealment or inaccurate particulars stated.” 8. The learned CIT(A), considering the entire details submissions filed by the assessee, however, dismissed the appeal of the assessee by following observations:– “DECISIONS & REASONS: 7. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions

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

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 25. – do – 1,90,000 04.06.2012 Cash 26. – do – 1,01,500 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

19)" Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank A.Y. 2014–15 & 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

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

19)" Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank A.Y. 2014–15 & 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

DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR vs. SANT SHANKAR MAHARAJ AASHRAM, DHAMANGAON AMRAVATI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

u/s 270A to the tune of Rs. 1,98,19,933/- for under reporting of income. e to add or after any other ground at the 2. Assessee craves leave to add or alter ) time of hearing. hearing.” 3. In this case, the Assessing Officer, on 23/04/2021, passed order under section 144 of the Income

SANT SHANKAR MAHARAJ AASHRAM,AMRAVATI vs. DCIT ACIT CIR-EXEMP, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

u/s 270A to the tune of Rs. 1,98,19,933/- for under reporting of income. e to add or after any other ground at the 2. Assessee craves leave to add or alter ) time of hearing. hearing.” 3. In this case, the Assessing Officer, on 23/04/2021, passed order under section 144 of the Income

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

PRASAD DIPAKRAO BELORKAR,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-1, YAVVATMAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

19. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:– “1) The authorities below erred in the facts and circumstances of the case and as per law in levying and confirming a penalty of Rs.508000/- under section 271D of the Income Tax Act. Just and proper relief be granted to the assessee in this respect. 2) The authorities below erred

ALFIYA AYAZALI SAYYAD,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances, the learned AO erred. in not recording proper satisfaction in the show cause notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 27/12/2017. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances, the learned CIT(A) erred in not taking cognizance of the appellate order

MAHESHKUMAR HARGOVIND GOYAL,NAGPUR vs. WARD 1(2), 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 proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, were also initiated for concealment of income. The assessee being aggrieved carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 5. During the course of first appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) issued notices for hearing to the assessee to appear before him on 22/02/2021, 22/06/2023 and 06/07/2023, however, the assessee

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

U/s. 271(1)(c), imposition of penalty is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Nagpur erred in confirming penalty even though the concealed income determined as per CIT(A) order at Rs. 38,19,636/- and confirmed the penalty of Rs.33

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

U/s. 271(1)(c), imposition of penalty is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Nagpur erred in confirming penalty even though the concealed income determined as per CIT(A) order at Rs. 38,19,636/- and confirmed the penalty of Rs.33

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

U/s. 271(1)(c), imposition of penalty is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Nagpur erred in confirming penalty even though the concealed income determined as per CIT(A) order at Rs. 38,19,636/- and confirmed the penalty of Rs.33

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

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

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.2, NAGPUR vs. SHRI GOVINDDAS GOVERDHAN DAGA, NAGPUR

In the result, cross-objection filed by the assessee stands dismissed

penalty\nproceedings a/s 272.4(2)(c) of the L.T. Act, 1961 and to take other necessary\nsteps under the law.\"\n5.1 The AR of-the assessee later on submitted copies of assessment order\npassed by ACIT(CC)-1(4). Nagpur, u/s 143(3) and stated that the undersigned\nhad no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s

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

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

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 153D dated 29/09/2021 is in mechanical/routine manner without application of mind by Addl.CIT, which is merely a formality, an empty ritual and as such it leads to flagrant violation of the rules of law. 45. The third contention of the learned A.R. is that while granting such mechanical approval dated 29/09/2021 under section 153D for the assessment year