ACIT, AKOLA CIRCLE,, AKOLA vs. THE NANDURA URBAN CO OP. BANK LTD.,, BULDHANA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

penalty u/s 271(1)(c). (iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in holding that the issue of claim of provision of bad and doubtful debts on account of accrued interest on NPA was a debatable issue disregarding the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had extinguished the debate

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

SHRI PRAVEEN MANOHAR GHODKHANDE,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2),, NAGPUR

Appeal is allowed

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

Section 2 ITA.No.124/Nag./2017 Sh Praveen Manohar Ghodkhande, Nagpur. 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.1.35 lakhs imposed by the Assessing Officer in his order dated 16.06.2011 as upheld in the CIT(A) order as follows : “4.0. Appellant’s submissions along with penalty order have been considered carefully. Assessment order as well as records have also been perused

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

37,46,465/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee followed mercantile system of accounting as such the total contract receipts of Rs.3,32,67,046/- should have been offered as income during the year under consideration. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in the disallowance

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

37,46,465/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee followed mercantile system of accounting as such the total contract receipts of Rs.3,32,67,046/- should have been offered as income during the year under consideration. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in the disallowance

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

37,46,465/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee followed mercantile system of accounting as such the total contract receipts of Rs.3,32,67,046/- should have been offered as income during the year under consideration. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in the disallowance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the AO did not find the explanation offered by the assessee satisfactory and stated that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus towards explaining the credit of Rs.15,00,000/-. We respectfully object to the above observations and allegations made by the AO as the same are based on conjectures

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act are initiated separately.” 27 Smt. AanjuSaraf 41. Ld AR on the other hand submitted the observations of Ld CIT(A) from the appellate order, wherein the learned CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, confirmed the order

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act are initiated separately.” 27 Smt. AanjuSaraf 41. Ld AR on the other hand submitted the observations of Ld CIT(A) from the appellate order, wherein the learned CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, confirmed the order

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU A. SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act are initiated separately.” 27 Smt. AanjuSaraf 41. Ld AR on the other hand submitted the observations of Ld CIT(A) from the appellate order, wherein the learned CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, confirmed the order

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act are initiated separately.” 27 Smt. AanjuSaraf 41. Ld AR on the other hand submitted the observations of Ld CIT(A) from the appellate order, wherein the learned CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, confirmed the order

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act are initiated separately.” 27 Smt. AanjuSaraf 41. Ld AR on the other hand submitted the observations of Ld CIT(A) from the appellate order, wherein the learned CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, confirmed the order

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the IT Act are initiated separately.” 27 Smt. AanjuSaraf 41. Ld AR on the other hand submitted the observations of Ld CIT(A) from the appellate order, wherein the learned CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, confirmed the order