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

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 53. – do – 1,00,000 30.01.2013 Total 85,76,380 Shri Mahesh Shankar Sorate ITA no.250/Nag./2018 5. On a perusal of the above chart, the learned

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) of the Act is hereby Initiated separately for concealment of income.. 8.1 Hence, in order to protect the interest of the revenue, the addition of Rs.14,10,00,000/- is made in the case of the Assessee…….” 13. The learned PCIT has held that ` 4.60 crore has to be explained by Antariksh Barter

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.

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, the ld. DR strongly relied on the order of the AO 2.4 On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on the order

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) - 4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

48,027/-. On perusal of record, it is clear that during assessment, the assessee filed written submission alongwith supporting evidence in response to notices details called and the assessing officer. From the contents of show cause notice it is clear that assessing officer has verified all the issues during the course of assessment proceedings and passed the assessment order U/s

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) -4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

48,027/-. On perusal of record, it is clear that during assessment, the assessee filed written submission alongwith supporting evidence in response to notices details called and the assessing officer. From the contents of show cause notice it is clear that assessing officer has verified all the issues during the course of assessment proceedings and passed the assessment order U/s

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE AT NGP, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

48,027/-. On perusal of record, it is clear that during assessment, the assessee filed written submission alongwith supporting evidence in response to notices details called and the assessing officer. From the contents of show cause notice it is clear that assessing officer has verified all the issues during the course of assessment proceedings and passed the assessment order U/s

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

PRAVIN SHRAWANLAL SAHU,NAGPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.199 & 200/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Pravin Shrawanlal Sahu, The Assessing Officer- Plot No.517, Sahu Bhawan, V Nfac. Chandabai Layout, Chandan S Nagar, Medical Square, Nagpur – 440009. Pan: Bbmps2413P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Ca Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/12/2023

271(1)(c) for concealing the particulars of his income and penalty u/s 271F for non-filing of return are issued separately. Interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C is being charged. Notice of demand being made the integral part of this order is being issued.” Pravin Shrawanlal Sahu [A] 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee carried appeal before

PRAVIN SHRAWANLAL SAHU,NAGPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.199 & 200/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Pravin Shrawanlal Sahu, The Assessing Officer- Plot No.517, Sahu Bhawan, V Nfac. Chandabai Layout, Chandan S Nagar, Medical Square, Nagpur – 440009. Pan: Bbmps2413P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Ca Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 29/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/12/2023

271(1)(c) for concealing the particulars of his income and penalty u/s 271F for non-filing of return are issued separately. Interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C is being charged. Notice of demand being made the integral part of this order is being issued.” Pravin Shrawanlal Sahu [A] 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee carried appeal before

DAYAL AGRO PRODUCTS LTD,AKOLA vs. JCIT, AKOLA RANGE, AKOLA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, there is always a possibility of contingent loss and damage for which the appellant is aggrieved. We find merit in the submission and allowed the process to ride the cycle of adjudication. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT DR submitted that the order of CIT(A) is very

PURUSHOTTAM NARAYANRAO JADHAO,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), 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

u/s 250 of the Act is bad in law. 2. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing adequate opportunity of being heard, thereby breaching principles of natural justice. 2 Purshottam Narayanrao Jadhao 3. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating

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

SHRIKANT BHERULAL SHARMA LATE BHERULAL GIRDHARILAL SHARMA,WASHIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3 , AKOLA

In the result, assessee’s appeal being ITA no

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

u/s. 143(3) and ordered the reassessment of the said issue. However he added one more issue (which was not a part of limited scrutiny) viz. A.O. to examine cash balance of Rs.23,87,017/- and bank balance of Rs. 19,22,485/- in Akola Janta Coop. Bank Ltd. The Ld. Pr.C.I.T had passed the said order without properly applying