DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI & CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE, AMRAVATI vs. CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT 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

2,10,47,680, after claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act amounting tors 46,57,11,248. The case was selected for scrutiny. By following due process, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 26/02/2016, assessing total income of ` 23,51,05,202. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271

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

2,10,47,680, after claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act amounting tors 46,57,11,248. The case was selected for scrutiny. By following due process, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 26/02/2016, assessing total income of ` 23,51,05,202. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271

GIRDHARILAL MOTILAL AGRAWAL,BULDANA vs. ITO WARD-1, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 250 of the Act is bad in law. 2. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding action of learned AO in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Rs. 5,48,421/-. 2 Girdharilal Motilal Agrawal 3. Whether on the facts and in law, the notice issued for levy of penalty

ASHWINKUMAR KAILASHCHAND BAJORIYA,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1-1, AKLO

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali(Through Virtual Hearing From Pune) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 060/Nag/2022 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ashwinkumar Kailashchand Bajoriya, Murtizapur Road, Akola - 444 004 Pan: Abjpb6524E . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) of the Act, and thereby granted an opportunity to explain the reasoning beyond his non- compliance. Appellant’s submission that ‘he was busy with time barring tax audit till 31/10/2018’ did failed to impress the Ld. AO, which resulted in levying impugned penalty of ₹10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2.3 Aforestated

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

penalty levied by the learned AO of Rs.45,00,000/- under 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

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

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

2,77,22,160 written–off u/s 41(4) ` 1,92,31,029 5. Disallowance of interest accrued ` 10,87,720 6. Disallowance 5. The Assessing Officer dealt with the issue of interest accrued but not due which are as under:– “5. Interest accrued but not due: On verification of computation of income of the assessee bank it was observed

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

2,77,22,160 written–off u/s 41(4) ` 1,92,31,029 5. Disallowance of interest accrued ` 10,87,720 6. Disallowance 5. The Assessing Officer dealt with the issue of interest accrued but not due which are as under:– “5. Interest accrued but not due: On verification of computation of income of the assessee bank it was observed

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 68 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961. Further, the AO did not find the explanation offered by the assessee\nsatisfactory and stated that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus\ntowards explaining the credit of Rs.15,00,000/-. We respectfully object to the\nabove observations and allegations made by the AO as the same are based on\nconjectures

D.C.I.T. AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMARAVATI vs. THE AMRAVATI ZILLA PARISHAD SHIKSHAK SAHAKARI BANK LTD., AMARAVATI

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

penalty of Rs.82,73,704/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer’s corresponding order dated 06.09.2016 and reversed in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion, we note at the outset that the former’s show cause notice issued 2 ITA.No.239/Nag./2018 DCIT vs. The Amravati Zilla Parishad Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. under Section 274