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

200 under section 36(1)(viia) is therefore upheld and confirmed. Ground no. 1 is dismissed. 7.0 Ground No.2: Addition of the interest accrued but not due on securities amounting to Rs.17,39,54,837/-. The appellant had claimed deduction in respect of the interest accrued but not due on the Government and other approved securities. It is argued that

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

200 under section 36(1)(viia) is therefore upheld and confirmed. Ground no. 1 is dismissed. 7.0 Ground No.2: Addition of the interest accrued but not due on securities amounting to Rs.17,39,54,837/-. The appellant had claimed deduction in respect of the interest accrued but not due on the Government and other approved securities. It is argued that

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

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

INOCME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1(5), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK , NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for A

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

200 36(1)(vii) Interest accrued but not due on Govt. 2. ` 17,39,54,837 and other securities ` 2,68,07,020 3. Deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) Addition in respect of bad debts 4. ` 2,77,22,160 written–off u/s 41(4) ` 1,92,31,029 5. Disallowance of interest accrued ` 10,87,720 6. Disallowance

INOCME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1(5), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK , NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for A

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

200 36(1)(vii) Interest accrued but not due on Govt. 2. ` 17,39,54,837 and other securities ` 2,68,07,020 3. Deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) Addition in respect of bad debts 4. ` 2,77,22,160 written–off u/s 41(4) ` 1,92,31,029 5. Disallowance of interest accrued ` 10,87,720 6. Disallowance

MRS. DEVYANI AJIT MULIK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

200/- for the purpose of section 50C of the Act. Accordingly, AO made addition of Rs.2,35,08,703/- as the difference between long term capital gain shown by the assessee in the return of income and as calculated by the AO. AO also initiated penalty u/s.271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Vide order dated

M/S. GAJANAN COTSPIN ,BULDHANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KHAMGAON

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") as the interest bearing fund utilized for non-business purpose. In response, the assessee furnished reply which was extracted by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order vide Para–4.3 at Page–3 and 4, which is also reproduced below for ready reference:– “The assessee has not charged

MAITHILI MILIND RANE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c).\"\nAs the assessee has claimed that it has made investment of ₹\n13,82,000/- in the F.Y. 2012–13, the Ld. Commissioner, thus in\norder to verify the factual aspects, had sought for remand report\nfrom the A.O., who more or less reiterated the addition made by the\nA.O. Ld.Commissioner forwarded the remand report

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

u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. Shri Jeetendra Chandrakant Nayak vs. ACIT (OSD) ITA no. 368/Nag./2023 7] The assessee craves leave to amend, add or take a new ground or grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. The facts of the case of the assessee as culled out from

VAISHALI ARVIND TAYADE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, AMARAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

section 80C (LIC/PPF) was disallowed. The Assessing Officer has also disallowed the interest paid on borrowed capital amounting to ` 3 Vaishali Arvind Tayade ITA no.374/Nag./2022 78,540, aggregating to the total disallowance of ` 1,22,310. Consequent upon passing of the assessment order by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned