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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961. 6.2 The appellant has relied on several judicial decisions to argue its case and these were perused. It is observed that the Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in case of Syndicate Bank Vs. DCIT reported at 78 ITD 103 has concluded that the deduction u/s 36(1) (viia

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961. 6.2 The appellant has relied on several judicial decisions to argue its case and these were perused. It is observed that the Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in case of Syndicate Bank Vs. DCIT reported at 78 ITD 103 has concluded that the deduction u/s 36(1) (viia

BHAKTVATSAL SADGURU YOGIRAJ VASANTRAO GOPALRAO GHONGE MAHARAJ TRUST,WARDHA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

28-44) of the IT Act. Further, the Assessing Officer finalized the assessment order under section 143(3) r/w section 263 of the Act thereby disallowing the expenses amounting to ` 15,92,565, claimed towards the object of the trust as exemption under section 11 had been denied. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

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 33. – do – 2,00,000 22.06.2012 Cash 34. – do – 2,00,000 29.06.2012 Cash 35. – do – 95,000 29.06.2012 Cash

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

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

28-2-2013, the Ld. CIT(A)-7, Pune while deciding the appeal of the assessee has observed as under: "The appellant has contended that, appellant is not co-operative bank and therefore provision of section 80P(4) does not apply. The appellant is Regional Rural Bank and claimed that, it is Primary Agriculture Credit Society or Primary Agriculture

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

28-2-2013, the Ld. CIT(A)-7, Pune while deciding the appeal of the assessee has observed as under: "The appellant has contended that, appellant is not co-operative bank and therefore provision of section 80P(4) does not apply. The appellant is Regional Rural Bank and claimed that, it is Primary Agriculture Credit Society or Primary Agriculture

SATISH KUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) be orders to be waived.” 4. Brief facts:– The assessee is an individual. For the year under consideration, the assessee had not filed his return of income. During the relevant assessment year, as per AIR information, the assessee was found to have deposited cash of ` 5,28,35,502 in his bank account with Bank

SATISH KUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) be orders to be waived.” 4. Brief facts:– The assessee is an individual. For the year under consideration, the assessee had not filed his return of income. During the relevant assessment year, as per AIR information, the assessee was found to have deposited cash of ` 5,28,35,502 in his bank account with Bank

SATISH KUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) be orders to be waived.” 4. Brief facts:– The assessee is an individual. For the year under consideration, the assessee had not filed his return of income. During the relevant assessment year, as per AIR information, the assessee was found to have deposited cash of ` 5,28,35,502 in his bank account with Bank

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, GONDIA vs. SHRI SATISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA , GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) be orders to be waived.” 4. Brief facts:– The assessee is an individual. For the year under consideration, the assessee had not filed his return of income. During the relevant assessment year, as per AIR information, the assessee was found to have deposited cash of ` 5,28,35,502 in his bank account with Bank

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, GONDIA vs. SHRI SATISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA , GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) be orders to be waived.” 4. Brief facts:– The assessee is an individual. For the year under consideration, the assessee had not filed his return of income. During the relevant assessment year, as per AIR information, the assessee was found to have deposited cash of ` 5,28,35,502 in his bank account with Bank

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

28-09-2018 furnished in the assessment proceedings that the commission of 0.25% mentioned in the seized document represents the gross profit assured by Base Corporation Ltd. to the parties for turnover business. BCL had entered into arrangement with few parties for these types of transaction to increase the turnover and accordingly they had to provide commission in the form

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

28-09-2018 furnished in the assessment\nproceedings that the commission of 0.25% mentioned in the seized document\nrepresents the gross profit assured by Base Corporation Ltd. to the parties for\nturnover business. BCL had entered into arrangement with few parties for\nthese types of transaction to increase the turnover and accordingly they had\nto provide commission in the form

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

28-09-2018 furnished in the assessment\nproceedings that the commission of 0.25% mentioned in the seized document\nrepresents the gross profit assured by Base Corporation Ltd. to the parties for\nturnover business. BCL had entered into arrangement with few parties for\nthese types of transaction to increase the turnover and accordingly they had\nto provide commission in the form

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

28-09-2018 furnished in the assessment\nproceedings that the commission of 0.25% mentioned in the seized document\nrepresents the gross profit assured by Base Corporation Ltd. to the parties for\nturnover business. BCL had entered into arrangement with few parties for\nthese types of transaction to increase the turnover and accordingly they had\nto provide commission in the form

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

28-09-2018 furnished in the assessment\nproceedings that the commission of 0.25% mentioned in the seized document\nrepresents the gross profit assured by Base Corporation Ltd. to the parties for\nturnover business. BCL had entered into arrangement with few parties for\nthese types of transaction to increase the turnover and accordingly they had\nto provide commission in the form

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

28-09-2018 furnished in the assessment\nproceedings that the commission of 0.25% mentioned in the seized document\nrepresents the gross profit assured by Base Corporation Ltd. to the parties for\nturnover business. BCL had entered into arrangement with few parties for\nthese types of transaction to increase the turnover and accordingly they had\nto provide commission in the form