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

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

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

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

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

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