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

u/s 36(1)(viia) of I.T. Act 1961 on account of non- provisions of the same in books of account. The relevant observations from the decision are reproduced herein under for reference. "Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section Income Tax Act?" 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

u/s 36(1)(viia) of I.T. Act 1961 on account of non- provisions of the same in books of account. The relevant observations from the decision are reproduced herein under for reference. "Whether the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in law in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section Income Tax Act?" 271

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

271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Sections 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income-tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or any other enactment

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

271(1) (c) is being issued separately. 6. Sections 22 and 32 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 provides as under:- 22. Regional Rural Bank to be deemed to be a cooperative society for purpose of the Income-tax Act, 1961.- For the purpose of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or any other enactment

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

36 to 40, 151-152/Nag/2017 dated 28.06.2022 has quashed the order passed by CIT u/s 263 of the Act wherein the expenses claimed by the appellant towards the object of the trust amounting to Rs. 20,47,792/- was disallowed and resultantly allowed the appeal of the appellant. (141 taxmann.com 100 (Nagpur Trib.)/[2022] 197 ITD 224 (Nagpur Trib

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

36. – do – 90,000 05.07.2012 Cash 37. – do – 1,30,000 06.07.2012 Cash 38. – do – 1,98,080 26.07.2012 Cash 39. – do – 52,000 01.08.2012 Cash 40. – do – 1,35,000 10.08.2012 Cash 41. – do – 1,14,000 11.08.2012 Cash 42. – do – 2,50,000 21.08.2012 Cash 43. – do – 50,000 23.08.2012 Cash 44. – do – 3,50,000 23.09.2012 Cash

THE WARDHA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD.,WARDHA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

u/s 271(1)(c) to the tune of Rs.68,00,000/-. 2. The Appellant craves leave to add or alter any other ground that may be taken at the time of the hearing.” 2 The Wardha District Central Co–operative Bank Ltd. ITA no.11/Nag./2025 3. While perusing the material available on record, we find that this is a case

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of taxable income. The assessee being aggrieved, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A), on a perusal of Form no.35, observed that there is a delay of 405 days in filing the appeal before him. The assessee, while

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of taxable income. The assessee being aggrieved, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A), on a perusal of Form no.35, observed that there is a delay of 405 days in filing the appeal before him. The assessee, while

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

36,460/- Assessed income u/s. 143(3) : Rs.4,61,460/- Returned income u/s. 148 : Rs.4,61,460/- Add: Unexplained cash credit : Rs. 14,10,00,000/- (discussed above in Para no. 4) Add: Unexplained cash credit : Rs. 5,57,10,000/- (discussed above in Para no. 5) ––––––––––––––– Assessed income : Rs.19,71,71,460 –––––––––––––- 12. The impugned assessment order in case

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

36,726/-. GROUND NO. 1 and 2: That the AO erred in passing the assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 1534. The notice and proceedings u/s. 153A are bad in law and wrong on facts. That no incriminating document was found as a result of si arch and the notice u/s. 153A was objected in the computation of income furnished vide

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

36,755/- 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of unaccounted income of M/s. Gigeo Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Rs.1,37,46,465/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee followed mercantile system of accounting as such the total contract receipts of Rs.3

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

36,755/- 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of unaccounted income of M/s. Gigeo Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Rs.1,37,46,465/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee followed mercantile system of accounting as such the total contract receipts of Rs.3

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

36,755/- 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of unaccounted income of M/s. Gigeo Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Rs.1,37,46,465/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee followed mercantile system of accounting as such the total contract receipts of Rs.3

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

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

36,726/-.\nGROUND NO. 1 and 2:\nThat the AO erred in passing the assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A.\nThe notice and proceedings u/s. 153A are bad in law and wrong on facts. That\nno incriminating document was found as a result of search and the notice u/s.\n153A was objected in the computation of income furnished vide letter

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

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 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

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

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 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