DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI & CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE, AMRAVATI vs. CHANDRAPUR DISTRICT 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

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

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 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 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 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

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

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

56,69,664/- by claiming deduction at Rs. 47,48,027/-. 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

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

56,69,664/- by claiming deduction at Rs. 47,48,027/-. 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

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

56,69,664/- by claiming deduction at Rs. 47,48,027/-. 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

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

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

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