HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

deduction permissible under Section 80P for reason of it being allowed to Co-operative Societies. We also notice a Division Bench 9 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 decision of this Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2016] 68

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

deduction permissible under Section 80P for reason of it being allowed to Co-operative Societies. We also notice a Division Bench 9 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 decision of this Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2016] 68

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

deduction permissible under Section 80P for reason of it being allowed to Co-operative Societies. We also notice a Division Bench 9 Hinganghat Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha ITA no.569/Nag./2024 decision of this Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2016] 68

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

deduction permissible under Section 80P for reason of\nit being allowed to Co-operative Societies. We also notice a Division Bench\ndecision of this Court in Chirakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT\n[2016] 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCEL-1(2, NAGPUR vs. M/S. VIBRANT GLOBAL CAPITAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

68 A) CIT(A) has deleted the addition by following the decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT reported at 383 ITR 529 (Bom). (P- 46 to 61 [Vol. – IV] (50, 57, 58) B) The assessee company is having share capital, reserve & surplus and interest free funds at Rs.62.55 crore

RAMKRUSHNA ZILBAJI THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WRAD -4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 which are jointly held along with spouse of the assessee and in the matter of rejecting the explanation that said deposits are made by other co holder of the bank account out of sale proceeds of the agriculture land and in the matter of arbitrarily rejecting the evidences submitted by assessee being unregistered agreement to sale holding

RAVINDRA MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE , AKOLA

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

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

deduction of tax at source and information to this effect was given in the loan confirmation statements by those creditors filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Thus it is clear that the assessee had discharged the initial onus which lays on it in terms of section 68

DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 143(1)(a) of the Act of ` 68,23,460, which comprised of contingent liability to the tune of ` 54,95,265, additional impact of ICDS to the tune of ` 3,43,462 and lesser deduction

DURGAPUR RAYATWARI COLLIERY KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 143(1)(a) of the Act of ` 68,23,460, which comprised of contingent liability to the tune of ` 54,95,265, additional impact of ICDS to the tune of ` 3,43,462 and lesser deduction

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

deduction of tax at source and information to this effect was given in the loan confirmation statements by those creditors filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Thus it is clear that the assessee had discharged the initial onus which lays on it in terms of section 68

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

deduction of tax at source and information to this effect was\ngiven in the loan confirmation statements by those creditors filed by the\nassessee before the Assessing Officer. Thus it is clear that the assessee\nhad discharged the initial onus which lays on it in terms of section 68

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

deduction of tax at source and information to this effect was\ngiven in the loan confirmation statements by those creditors filed by the\nassessee before the Assessing Officer. Thus it is clear that the assessee\nhad discharged the initial onus which lays on it in terms of section 68

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

deduction of tax at source and information to this effect was\ngiven in the loan confirmation statements by those creditors filed by the\nassessee before the Assessing Officer. Thus it is clear that the assessee\nhad discharged the initial onus which lays on it in terms of section 68

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

deduction of tax at source and information to this effect was\ngiven in the loan confirmation statements by those creditors filed by the\nassessee before the Assessing Officer. Thus it is clear that the assessee\nhad discharged the initial onus which lays on it in terms of section 68

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

deduction of tax at source and information to this effect was\ngiven in the loan confirmation statements by those creditors filed by the\nassessee before the Assessing Officer. Thus it is clear that the assessee\nhad discharged the initial onus which lays on it in terms of section 68

ANKIT SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Ankit Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Biapt 4756 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 / 6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

deduction in the said section. Hence, matter remanded to Tribunal to examine all evidences in detail and decide the matter afresh. The said case law is clearly distinguishable from the facts of Appellant’s case In the instant case the return of income was filed by the Appellant under section 44AD declaring the cash position

NIKITA SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ms. Nikita Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Borpt 4644 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /62022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

deduction in the said section. Hence, matter remanded to Tribunal to examine all evidences in detail and decide the matter afresh. The said case law is clearly distinguishable from the facts of Appellant’s case In the instant case the return of income was filed by the Appellant under section 44AD declaring the cash position

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA RADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

68 – Rs.1.65 CIT(A) Dt.23.4.2021 applicabl Crores Unsecured Order e Regular loan from Anubhav 6.9.2021 Assessme Vinimay Ltd. nt ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 DETERMINATION OF STATUS OF ASSESSMENT RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPERS Particulars AY 2011-12 AY 2012-23 AY 2013-14 Return filed