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

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

40(a)(ia). 7.5 The appellant has submitted that he had made the repayment by using online cash deposit facility of the bank, which was out of his cash sales, and had insisted on such direct deposits to payee to ensure that the repayment was duly recorded. The assessing officer has not considered the business expediency in this case, which

I.T.O. WARD -2, YAVATMAL vs. SHRI AMOL ASHOK NILAWAR, YAVATMAL

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2008-

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Ito, Ward-2, Shri Amol Ashok Nilawar, Patrakar Colony, Datta Chowk, Yavatmal – 445001 Yavatmal – 445001 Vs. Pan: Abwpn6625K

40,17,029/- levied under the said section. 2. The revenue has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT (A) on the following grounds:- 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT (A) erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. M/S NANDLAL ENTERPRISES, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated separately.” 12. Before the CIT(A), the assessee has raised the plea that in no case the total payment to truck owners has exceeded Rs.50,000/- and hence, there was no requirement to deduct tax on such amounts. The CIT(A) after considering various submissions of assessee and relying on several

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. M/S NANDLAL ENTERPRISES, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated separately.” 12. Before the CIT(A), the assessee has raised the plea that in no case the total payment to truck owners has exceeded Rs.50,000/- and hence, there was no requirement to deduct tax on such amounts. The CIT(A) after considering various submissions of assessee and relying on several

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. M/S NANDLAL ENTERPRISES, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated separately.” 12. Before the CIT(A), the assessee has raised the plea that in no case the total payment to truck owners has exceeded Rs.50,000/- and hence, there was no requirement to deduct tax on such amounts. The CIT(A) after considering various submissions of assessee and relying on several

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

40(a)(ia) would cover not only the amounts which are payable as on 31st March of a previous year but also the amounts which are payable at any time during the year. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition

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

40(a)(ia) would cover not only the amounts which are payable as on 31st March of a previous year but also the amounts which are payable at any time during the year. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition

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

40(a)(ia) would cover not only the amounts which are payable as on 31st March of a previous year but also the amounts which are payable at any time during the year. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition

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

40,81,781, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and selected for scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer made assessment on total income of ` 50,81,436, by making addition of ` 97,06,79,200, as disallowance under the provisions for bad and doubtful debt under section 36(1)(viia

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

40,81,781, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and selected for scrutiny under CASS. The Assessing Officer made assessment on total income of ` 50,81,436, by making addition of ` 97,06,79,200, as disallowance under the provisions for bad and doubtful debt under section 36(1)(viia

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

section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Rs. 32,26,000/- is disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee under the head 'Income from Other Sources'. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6 Tajshree Autowheels Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.400/Nag./2024

MAHESHKUMAR HARGOVIND GOYAL,NAGPUR vs. WARD 1(2), 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

40 lakh and ` 61 lakh on 26/10/2010 and 27/10/2010 respectively. Thereafter, on 04/07/2011, the said Bank Account available with Nagpur Nagarik Sahakari Bank was closed on 04/07/2011. The assessee also received interest of ` 2,19,894, on such fixed deposit, however, the components of fixed deposit and interest receipt thereof were not reflected in the return of income filed

PRATHAMIK SHIKSHAK KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT vs. I.T.O. WARD -2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya. (S.M.C.)

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 are initiated for concealment of income by furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” 3. Against the above order the assessee appealed before the learned CIT(Appeals). The learned CIT(Appeals) elaborately reproduced the submission of the assessee. However, learned CIT(Appeals) declined to adjudicate the issue

MAITHILI MILIND RANE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

40% p.a.\n5) Ld. AO made addition of Rs. 17,00,000/- u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961.\n6) Assessee lodged complaint with EOW about recovery of money from\nMr. Wasankar and in complaint she claimed money maturity from Mr.\nWasankar in FY. 2012-13 as promised by him.\n7) The amount added to the income

SHETKARI SOLVENT (INDIA) LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT C.C. 1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.137/Nag/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007–08 Shetkari Solvent (India) Ltd., Ug–7&8, Jagat Chambers, Near Ambedkar Sqr, Central Avenue, Bagadganj, Nagpur–440008. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aabcs0105N बनाम / V/S. Acit, Central Circle–1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. Assessee By : Shri Abhay Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri U. U. Kasar, Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Nagpur Dated 11.01.2012 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Revised Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :– “1. That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.5,79,60,000 On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases Of Soya Doc

40,000 from Dange Rice Mill & Rs.1,25,65,900 from Shri Shankar Rice Mill) during AY 2007–08. 3. That the learned AO erred in not providing copy of third–party statements relied for making addition relating to alleged bogus purchases (Grounds of Appeal No.1 & 2), nor granted an opportunity to cross examine the said parties thereby breaching principles

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