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

section 153A of the Act in absence of incriminating\ndocument found as a result of search.\n57. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee did\nnot wish to press this ground to which the learned Departmental\nRepresentative has not raised any objection. Accordingly, ground no.2, stands\ndismissed as \"not pressed”.\n58. Ground no.3, relates

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 69.\nFurther, we may point out that section 68 under which the addition has\nbeen made by the Assessing Officer reads as under:\n\"68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee\nmaintained for any previous year. and the assessee offers no\nexplanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation

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

section 69.\nFurther, we may point out that section 68 under which the addition has\nbeen made by the Assessing Officer reads as under:\n\"68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee\nmaintained for any previous year. and the assessee offers no\nexplanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation

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

section 69.\nFurther, we may point out that section 68 under which the addition has\nbeen made by the Assessing Officer reads as under:\n\"68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee\nmaintained for any previous year. and the assessee offers no\nexplanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation

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

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

section 68 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961. Further, the AO did not find the explanation offered by the assessee\nsatisfactory and stated that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus\ntowards explaining the credit of Rs.15,00,000/-. We respectfully object to the\nabove observations and allegations made by the AO as the same are based

GIRDHARILAL MOTILAL AGRAWAL,BULDANA vs. ITO WARD-1, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) dated 24/07/2013 is vague and defective since, it does not specify the limb under which penalty under section 271(1)(c) was initiated. 4. Whether on the facts and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had offered an explanation that, the credit/cash entries in the bank account

SHRI BABURAO RAMBHAU KAPTE,CHANDRAPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDRAPUR RANGE, CHANDRAPUR

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

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

68 days. The delay of days was due to bonafide belief, reasonable cause and not attributable to the Appellant. Therefore in the interest of justice, delay in filing the present Appeal, may kindly be condoned. No prejudice is going to be cause to the Revenue if delay is condoned and Appeal is decided on merits.” 4. On a perusal

INOCME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1(5), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK , NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for A

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

68,07,020 3. Deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) Addition in respect of bad debts 4. ` 2,77,22,160 written–off u/s 41(4) ` 1,92,31,029 5. Disallowance of interest accrued ` 10,87,720 6. Disallowance 5. The Assessing Officer dealt with the issue of interest accrued but not due which are as under:– “5. Interest accrued

INOCME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1(5), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK , NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for A

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

68,07,020 3. Deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) Addition in respect of bad debts 4. ` 2,77,22,160 written–off u/s 41(4) ` 1,92,31,029 5. Disallowance of interest accrued ` 10,87,720 6. Disallowance 5. The Assessing Officer dealt with the issue of interest accrued but not due which are as under:– “5. Interest accrued

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.

68,475/- is confirmed and the AO is directed to delete the remaining addition. 15. I have considered the facts of the case, the material on record and judicial precedence relied upon by the applicant and appellant’s submission. The appellant has maintained details of name and addressed of the donors and has submitted the same to the A.O. Looking

MRS. BEANT KAUR JUNEJA,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), NAGPUR

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 018/Nag/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Beantkaur Avtarsingh Juneja Hp Petrol Pump, Dosar Bhavan, C. A. Road, Nagpur-440002. Pan: Aflpj2956E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

274(1) r.w.s. 271B was initiated for non-furnishing TAR by the due of filing ITR for AY 2017-18 i.e. 07/11/2017. In response thereto the assessee neither made any submission nor any representation explaining reasonable cause beyond delay in filing TAR owning to which the Ld. AO culminated the proceedings by an order dt. 23/03/2020 imposing penalty

ASSTT. CIT, CIR- 7, NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEWQUEST CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

68,734/- on sale of its investment without appreciating the fact that mere showing of shares under investment do not tantamount to investment surplus on sale of which would be capital gains.? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing assessee’s claim of Brand