SHRI RAJESH MOOLCHAND DAYARAMANI,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-8,, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) do not apply. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty when there was neither concealment of particulars of income nor any furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring income of ` 67,76,981 on 30th September 2009. The assessee

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

44. – do – 3,50,000 23.09.2012 Cash 45. – do – 2,00,000 04.10.2012 Cash 46. – do – 110,000 11.10.2012 Cash 47. – do – 1,50,000 13.10.2012 Cash 48. – do – 1,00,000 22.11.2012 Cash 49. – do – 3,00,000 16.11.2012 Cash 50. – do – 30,000 17.11.2012 Cash 51. – do – 3,00,000 24.11.2012 Cash 52. – do – 80,000 01.12.2012 Cash

SANT SHANKAR MAHARAJ AASHRAM,AMRAVATI vs. DCIT ACIT CIR-EXEMP, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

271, which included non- compliance issues. Let us discuss the new section along with the Memorandum explaining the clause and also the FM's speech to understand better. 4.3 Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. 270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during

DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR vs. SANT SHANKAR MAHARAJ AASHRAM, DHAMANGAON AMRAVATI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

271, which included non- compliance issues. Let us discuss the new section along with the Memorandum explaining the clause and also the FM's speech to understand better. 4.3 Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. 270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during

ACIT ,CIRCLE (EXEMPTION ),NAGPUR , NAGPUR vs. M/S SIPNA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL ,AMRAVAI , AMRAVATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Acit, Vs. M/S. Sipnashikshan Prasarak Mandal Circle (Exemption), Badnera Road Amravati Amravati Pan No.:Aacts 1266 J Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shripiyushkolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shrihimeshdemble (Ca) Date Of Hearing: 26/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-4, Nagpur Dated 27/03/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 Wherein The Department Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

section 115BBC by treating the donations in corpus fund as anonymous donations. 16. The AO is directed to charge interest u/s. 234B as per law. The ground pertaining to initiation of penalty u/s. 271(1)(C) being premature is not being adjudicated. 17. As a result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.’’ 2.3 During the course of hearing

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

44,900 shares of Tapadiya Polyester of ` 10 each and also ` 1,32,61,000, in the form of unsecured loan given to the Tapadia Polyester Pvt. Ltd. It is seen that the assessment order is erroneous inasmuch as it is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue for the reason stated by the learned PCIT in his order. Accordingly

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

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

M/S. GAJANAN COTSPIN ,BULDHANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KHAMGAON

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

44,26,500 12% 2,64,590 31/03/14 Total 7,62,780 7. From the contents of the above table, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee has utilized interest borrowing fund for non–business purpose and paid interest to the creditors (against unsecured loans) amounting to ` 7,62,780, calculated in the above manner

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL- CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. SHRI YASHWANT AJABRAO KHODKE, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

section 153C of the Act, declaring the same amount of income of ` 42,17,640, which was declared earlier on 09/02/2015. Further, the Department had also issued several statutory notices requiring the assessee to furnish the information and documents in support of their reply. 5. During the search proceedings at the residential premise of Shri Roshan Dhore, Nagpur, one loose

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

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 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