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

249 (SC) as regards the penalty are opposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales-tax Act, the Court had found that the authorities below had found that there were some incorrect statements made in the return. However, the said transactions were reflected in the accounts of the assessee. This Court, therefore

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

249 (SC) as regards the penalty are opposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales-tax Act, the Court had found that the authorities below had found that there were some incorrect statements made in the return. However, the said transactions were reflected in the accounts of the assessee. This Court, therefore

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

4) Even though the section 115BBC is not applicable to the Appellant as per clause 1 above, there is addition of anonymous donations under section 115BBC. The calculation of amount is also not proper. It is based on only part donation received and not total donations received. As per section 115BBC (1) the amount brought to tax is the aggregate

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

4) Even though the section 115BBC is not applicable to the Appellant as per clause 1 above, there is addition of anonymous donations under section 115BBC. The calculation of amount is also not proper. It is based on only part donation received and not total donations received. As per section 115BBC (1) the amount brought to tax is the aggregate

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,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

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

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

249 (Mum Trib.) (k) Anil Mahavir Gupta vs. ACIT (2017) 82 taxmann.com 122 (Mum Trib.) (I) CIT Vs. Pratibha Industries Ltd. [2013] 141 ITD 151 (m) Principal CIT Vs. Kurele Paper Mills (P.) Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 571 (n) CIT Vs. Lancy Constructions (2016) 383 ITR 168 (0) CIT Vs. Anupkumar Bhatia

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

249 (Mum\nTrib.)\n(k) Anil Mahavir Gupta vs. ACIT (2017) 82 taxmann.com 122 (Mum\nTrib.)\n(I) CIT Vs. Pratibha Industries Ltd. [2013] 141 ITD 151\n(m) Principal CIT Vs. Kurele Paper Mills (P.) Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 571\n(n) CIT Vs. Lancy Constructions (2016) 383 ITR 168\n(o) CIT Vs. Anupkumar Bhatia

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

249 (Mum\nTrib.)\n(k) Anil Mahavir Gupta vs. ACIT (2017) 82 taxmann.com 122 (Mum\nTrib.)\n(I) CIT Vs. Pratibha Industries Ltd. [2013] 141 ITD 151\n(m) Principal CIT Vs. Kurele Paper Mills (P.) Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 571\n(n) CIT Vs. Lancy Constructions (2016) 383 ITR 168\n(0) CIT Vs. Anupkumar Bhatia

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

249 (Mum\nTrib.)\n(k) Anil Mahavir Gupta vs. ACIT (2017) 82 taxmann.com 122 (Mum\nTrib.)\n(I) CIT Vs. Pratibha Industries Ltd. [2013] 141 ITD 151\n(m) Principal CIT Vs. Kurele Paper Mills (P.) Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 571\n(n) CIT Vs. Lancy Constructions (2016) 383 ITR 168\n(0) CIT Vs. Anupkumar Bhatia

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

249 (Mum\nTrib.)\n(k) Anil Mahavir Gupta vs. ACIT (2017) 82 taxmann.com 122 (Mum\nTrib.)\n(I) CIT Vs. Pratibha Industries Ltd. [2013] 141 ITD 151\n(m) Principal CIT Vs. Kurele Paper Mills (P.) Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 571\n(n) CIT Vs. Lancy Constructions (2016) 383 ITR 168\n(0) CIT Vs. Anupkumar Bhatia

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

249 (Mum\nTrib.)\n(k) Anil Mahavir Gupta vs. ACIT (2017) 82 taxmann.com 122 (Mum\nTrib.)\n(I) CIT Vs. Pratibha Industries Ltd. [2013] 141 ITD 151\n(m) Principal CIT Vs. Kurele Paper Mills (P.) Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 571\n(n) CIT Vs. Lancy Constructions (2016) 383 ITR 168\n(0) CIT Vs. Anupkumar Bhatia

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

249 (Mum\nTrib.)\n(k) Anil Mahavir Gupta vs. ACIT (2017) 82 taxmann.com 122 (Mum\nTrib.)\n(I) CIT Vs. Pratibha Industries Ltd. [2013] 141 ITD 151\n(m) Principal CIT Vs. Kurele Paper Mills (P.) Ltd. (2016) 380 ITR 571\n(n) CIT Vs. Lancy Constructions (2016) 383 ITR 168\n(0) CIT Vs. Anupkumar Bhatia