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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961. 6.2 The appellant has relied on several judicial decisions to argue its case and these were perused. It is observed that the Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in case of Syndicate Bank Vs. DCIT reported at 78 ITD 103 has concluded that the deduction u/s 36(1) (viia

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act 1961. 6.2 The appellant has relied on several judicial decisions to argue its case and these were perused. It is observed that the Hon'ble ITAT Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in case of Syndicate Bank Vs. DCIT reported at 78 ITD 103 has concluded that the deduction u/s 36(1) (viia

M/S NAVAL K AGARWAL,NAGPUR vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

Section 271 (1) (C) of the Act. It was further held that in case there is nothing to the contrary in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act in the absence of any specific statement about the manner in which such income has been derived, it can be inferred that such undisclosed income was derived from the business

SHRI PRAKASH JIWANDAS WANJARI,NAGPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, we are of the considered view that the case on hand does not warrant levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act

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

271-1. section 271J, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 2724, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or clause (b) of sub- section (1) or clause (b) or clause

M/S FUEL CORPORATION OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is ordered to be allowed

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was further held that in case there is nothing to the contrary in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act in the absence of any specific statement about the manner in which such income has been derived, it can be inferred that such undisclosed income was derived from the business

SHRI NARENDRA RATANLAL RATHI,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(2), NAGPUR

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya. (S.M.C.)

penalties u/s 271(1)© and 271(1)(b). 2. In this case the assessee’s source of income is from salary. During the course of assessment Assessing Officer examined the assessee’s source of investment in house and the creditors shown. The Assessing Officer was not convinced with assessee's reply. He made the following additions : “ i) Difference in investment

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.56/Nag/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2018-19 Bajaj Steel Industries Ltd., The Director Of Income C-108, Hingna Road, Midc V Tax, Industrial Area, Hingna, S Intelligence & Criminal Investigation, 3Rd Floor, Nagpur – 440028. Pan: Aaacb5340H Room No.301, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440001. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajesh Loya – Ca-Ar Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Passed U/S250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 271Fa Of The Act Dated 27.09.2019 Passed By Director Of Income Tax(Intelligence & Bajaj Steel Industries Ltd., [A]

section 2 69 ST of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable to the assessee. That the assessee company has filed the SFT re porting only for safer side of law. Since this was the first year of filing and due to some wrong interpretation of law, the assessee has report the transactions/receipts which was not required

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

Penalty name appealed Proceedings amount against confirmed in the CIT(A)’S order ITA No. 112/ 2007- Shri Mitesh CIT(A)-3/69 u/s. 271(1)(c) Rs.1,69,783/- Nag./2018 08 G.Bhangdiya /2017-18 ITA No. 113/ 2007- Shri Sanjay CIT(A)-3/32 u/s. 271(1)(c) Rs.12,56,366/- Nag./2018 08 Heda /2017-18

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

Penalty name appealed Proceedings amount against confirmed in the CIT(A)’S order ITA No. 112/ 2007- Shri Mitesh CIT(A)-3/69 u/s. 271(1)(c) Rs.1,69,783/- Nag./2018 08 G.Bhangdiya /2017-18 ITA No. 113/ 2007- Shri Sanjay CIT(A)-3/32 u/s. 271(1)(c) Rs.12,56,366/- Nag./2018 08 Heda /2017-18

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

Penalty name appealed Proceedings amount against confirmed in the CIT(A)’S order ITA No. 112/ 2007- Shri Mitesh CIT(A)-3/69 u/s. 271(1)(c) Rs.1,69,783/- Nag./2018 08 G.Bhangdiya /2017-18 ITA No. 113/ 2007- Shri Sanjay CIT(A)-3/32 u/s. 271(1)(c) Rs.12,56,366/- Nag./2018 08 Heda /2017-18

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

Penalty name appealed Proceedings amount against confirmed in the CIT(A)’S order ITA No. 112/ 2007- Shri Mitesh CIT(A)-3/69 u/s. 271(1)(c) Rs.1,69,783/- Nag./2018 08 G.Bhangdiya /2017-18 ITA No. 113/ 2007- Shri Sanjay CIT(A)-3/32 u/s. 271(1)(c) Rs.12,56,366/- Nag./2018 08 Heda /2017-18

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

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

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

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

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

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

271(1)(c)\nTribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the\ngrounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors,\n(ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged\nhundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index\nnumbers with the Income-tax Department

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

271(1)(c)\nTribunal deleted the impugned addition as well as the penalty imposed on the\ngrounds that (i) assessee have given the names and addresses of the creditors,\n(ii) it had also produced before ITO letters of confirmation, the discharged\nhundis and particulars of the different creditors including their general index\nnumbers with the Income-tax Department

MAITHILI MILIND RANE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

69 of the IT Act, 1961.\n6) Assessee lodged complaint with EOW about recovery of money from\nMr. Wasankar and in complaint she claimed money maturity from Mr.\nWasankar in FY. 2012-13 as promised by him.\n7) The amount added to the income Rs. 17,00,000/- was not the amount\ninvested with Mr. Wasakar during