ACIT, CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. CHANDRAPUR DISTT. CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD , CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

56,893, and claimed refund of ` 2,10,47,680, after claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act amounting tors 46,57,11,248. The case was selected for scrutiny. By following due process, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 26/02/2016, assessing total income of ` 23,51,05,202. Subsequently, penalty

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. M/S CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPRATIVE BANK LIMTED , CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

56,893, and claimed refund of ` 2,10,47,680, after claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viia) of the Act amounting tors 46,57,11,248. The case was selected for scrutiny. By following due process, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 26/02/2016, assessing total income of ` 23,51,05,202. Subsequently, penalty

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

BHAVESH SURESH SEJPAL,AKOT vs. ITO WARD-3, AKOLA

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for under-reporting is initiated separately.” Consequent upon the issuance of the assessment order passed under section 56

SHRI SANJAY RAMESHCHANDRAJI HEDA,AMARAVATI vs. ASSISTNT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

u/s. 271(1)(c) Rs.3,56,390/- Nag./2018 09 Kirtikumar /2017-18 Mitesh Bhangdiya 2. Heard the assessee’s as well as the department at length. Case files perused. 3. Coming to the identical substantive issue amongst the parties herein regarding correctness of both the learned lower authorities imposing Section 271(1)(c) penalties

SHRI MITESH G. BHANGDIYA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

u/s. 271(1)(c) Rs.3,56,390/- Nag./2018 09 Kirtikumar /2017-18 Mitesh Bhangdiya 2. Heard the assessee’s as well as the department at length. Case files perused. 3. Coming to the identical substantive issue amongst the parties herein regarding correctness of both the learned lower authorities imposing Section 271(1)(c) penalties

SHRI KIRTIKUMAR MITESH BHANGADIA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

u/s. 271(1)(c) Rs.3,56,390/- Nag./2018 09 Kirtikumar /2017-18 Mitesh Bhangdiya 2. Heard the assessee’s as well as the department at length. Case files perused. 3. Coming to the identical substantive issue amongst the parties herein regarding correctness of both the learned lower authorities imposing Section 271(1)(c) penalties

SHRI KIRTIKUMR BHANGDIYA ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT CMMISISONR OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

u/s. 271(1)(c) Rs.3,56,390/- Nag./2018 09 Kirtikumar /2017-18 Mitesh Bhangdiya 2. Heard the assessee’s as well as the department at length. Case files perused. 3. Coming to the identical substantive issue amongst the parties herein regarding correctness of both the learned lower authorities imposing Section 271(1)(c) penalties

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, GONDIA vs. SHRI SATISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA , GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

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

u/s 271(1)(b) be orders to be waived.” 4. Brief facts:– The assessee is an individual. For the year under consideration, the assessee had not filed his return of income. During the relevant assessment year, as per AIR information, the assessee was found to have deposited cash of ` 5,28,35,502 in his bank account with Bank

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, GONDIA vs. SHRI SATISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA , GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

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

u/s 271(1)(b) be orders to be waived.” 4. Brief facts:– The assessee is an individual. For the year under consideration, the assessee had not filed his return of income. During the relevant assessment year, as per AIR information, the assessee was found to have deposited cash of ` 5,28,35,502 in his bank account with Bank

SATISH KUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

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

u/s 271(1)(b) be orders to be waived.” 4. Brief facts:– The assessee is an individual. For the year under consideration, the assessee had not filed his return of income. During the relevant assessment year, as per AIR information, the assessee was found to have deposited cash of ` 5,28,35,502 in his bank account with Bank

SATISH KUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

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

u/s 271(1)(b) be orders to be waived.” 4. Brief facts:– The assessee is an individual. For the year under consideration, the assessee had not filed his return of income. During the relevant assessment year, as per AIR information, the assessee was found to have deposited cash of ` 5,28,35,502 in his bank account with Bank

SATISH KUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, GONDIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the ay 2009–10 stands dismissed

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

u/s 271(1)(b) be orders to be waived.” 4. Brief facts:– The assessee is an individual. For the year under consideration, the assessee had not filed his return of income. During the relevant assessment year, as per AIR information, the assessee was found to have deposited cash of ` 5,28,35,502 in his bank account with Bank

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

u/s 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

u/s 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

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

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

PRABHAKAR RAMAJI AKARE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 148 for the relevant year. Hence the genuineness of the assessee's claim is doubtful. 5. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposit of ` 8,00,000, in the Bank of India as unexplained cash under section 69A and added the same to the total income for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings

PRABHAKAR RAMAJI AKARE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFCER, WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 148 for the relevant year. Hence the genuineness of the assessee's claim is doubtful. 5. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposit of ` 8,00,000, in the Bank of India as unexplained cash under section 69A and added the same to the total income for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings