DCIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR vs. M/S TRISTER RETAIL CONCEPTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, department’s appeal stands dismissed

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

25,428 and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealing the income. The reply filed by assesseeis perused but the same is not acceptable in light of above discussion. Therefore on the facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed particulars of his income and penalty u/s 271(c) is leviable on the issue

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

25. – do – 1,90,000 04.06.2012 Cash 26. – do – 1,01,500 04.06.2012 Cash 27. – do – 1,07,000 08.06.2012 Cash 28. – do – 3,00,000 09.06.2012 Cash 29. – do – 2,00,000 09.06.2012 Cash 30. – do – 1,00,000 09.06.2012 Cash 31. – do – 3,50,000 14.06.2012 Cash 32. – do – 1,00,000 22.09.2012 Cash

SUNITA ASHOK BHAIYA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

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

penalty of ` 59,160, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. During the year under consideration, the assessee was carrying on the business of selling rice through milling with the help of system of integrated handling, storage and transportation. According to the assessee, the system of integrated handling, storage and transportation was carried as mentioned in Sunita Ashok

SUNITA ASHOK BHAIYA ,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

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

penalty of ` 59,160, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. During the year under consideration, the assessee was carrying on the business of selling rice through milling with the help of system of integrated handling, storage and transportation. According to the assessee, the system of integrated handling, storage and transportation was carried as mentioned in Sunita Ashok

SUNITA ASHOK BHAIYA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-5, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

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

penalty of ` 59,160, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. During the year under consideration, the assessee was carrying on the business of selling rice through milling with the help of system of integrated handling, storage and transportation. According to the assessee, the system of integrated handling, storage and transportation was carried as mentioned in Sunita Ashok

SUNITA ASHOK BHAIYA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

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

penalty of ` 59,160, under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. During the year under consideration, the assessee was carrying on the business of selling rice through milling with the help of system of integrated handling, storage and transportation. According to the assessee, the system of integrated handling, storage and transportation was carried as mentioned in Sunita Ashok

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) of the Act is hereby Initiated separately for concealment of income.. 8.1 Hence, in order to protect the interest of the revenue, the addition of Rs.14,10,00,000/- is made in the case of the Assessee…….” 13. The learned PCIT has held that ` 4.60 crore has to be explained by Antariksh Barter

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

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

25-8- 2006 addressed to RBI was issued by the Board clarifying that Regional Rural Banks would not be eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 from the assessment year 2007-08 onwards. 4. It has been bought to the notice of the Board that despite the amended provisions, some Regional Rural Banks continue

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

25-8- 2006 addressed to RBI was issued by the Board clarifying that Regional Rural Banks would not be eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 from the assessment year 2007-08 onwards. 4. It has been bought to the notice of the Board that despite the amended provisions, some Regional Rural Banks continue

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

25 lakhs is received on 19th & 20th which can be seen in the Bank Account of Omega Industries which paid by RTGS to Base Corporation Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs. Subsequently there is note that Rs. 20 lakhs received on 24. The same can be seen as payment from the account of Omega Industries on 24th. Similarly

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

25 lakhs is received on 19th & 20th which can\nbe seen in the Bank Account of Omega Industries which paid by RTGS to Base\nCorporation Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs. Subsequently there is note that Rs.\n20 lakhs received on 24. The same can be seen as payment from the account\nof Omega Industries on 24th. Similarly

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

25 lakhs is received on 19th & 20th which can\nbe seen in the Bank Account of Omega Industries which paid by RTGS to Base\nCorporation Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs. Subsequently there is note that Rs.\n20 lakhs received on 24. The same can be seen as payment from the account\nof Omega Industries on 24th. Similarly

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

25 lakhs is received on 19th & 20th which can\nbe seen in the Bank Account of Omega Industries which paid by RTGS to Base\nCorporation Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs. Subsequently there is note that Rs.\n20 lakhs received on 24. The same can be seen as payment from the account\nof Omega Industries on 24th. Similarly

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

25 lakhs is received on 19th & 20th which can\nbe seen in the Bank Account of Omega Industries which paid by RTGS to Base\nCorporation Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs. Subsequently there is note that Rs.\n20 lakhs received on 24. The same can be seen as payment from the account\nof Omega Industries on 24th. Similarly

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)\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

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

25 lakhs is received on 19th & 20th which can\nbe seen in the Bank Account of Omega Industries which paid by RTGS to Base\nCorporation Rs. 15 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs. Subsequently there is note that Rs.\n20 lakhs received on 24. The same can be seen as payment from the account\nof Omega Industries on 24th. Similarly

SHRIKANT BHERULAL SHARMA LATE BHERULAL GIRDHARILAL SHARMA,WASHIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3 , AKOLA

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

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

u/s. 143(3) and ordered the reassessment of the said issue. However he added one more issue (which was not a part of limited scrutiny) viz. A.O. to examine cash balance of Rs.23,87,017/- and bank balance of Rs. 19,22,485/- in Akola Janta Coop. Bank Ltd. The Ld. Pr.C.I.T had passed the said order without properly applying