M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 68 of the Act. The grounds no.3 to 6, are reproduced below for A.Y. 2014–15:– “3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.12,00,000 on the count of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits u/s68, when, on the date of search

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 68 of the Act. The grounds no.3 to 6, are reproduced below for A.Y. 2014–15:– “3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.12,00,000 on the count of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits u/s68, when, on the date of search

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 68 of the Act. The grounds no.3 to 6, are reproduced below for A.Y. 2014–15:– “3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.12,00,000 on the count of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits u/s68, when, on the date of search

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 68 of the Act. The grounds no.3 to 6, are reproduced below for A.Y. 2014–15:– “3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.12,00,000 on the count of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits u/s68, when, on the date of search

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 68 of the Act. The grounds no.3 to 6, are reproduced below for A.Y. 2014–15:– “3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.12,00,000 on the count of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits u/s68, when, on the date of search

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 68 of the Act. The grounds no.3 to 6, are reproduced below for A.Y. 2014–15:– “3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.12,00,000 on the count of unsecured loan treating it as unexplained credits u/s68, when, on the date of search

RAVINDRA KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE AKOLA , 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

TDS has been deducted on the same. 2.5 The fact that the assessee has repaid the money in itself draws the proposition that the addition under section 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S. FUELCO COAL INDIA LTD., NAGPUR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

68 of the Act. Hence, this ground of appeal is 'allowed'. 4.2 The Ground of appeal no.4 is that the AO has made a mistake in making an addition of Rs 1,50,000/- for non-deduction of TDS on professional fee paid to Advocate Shri Rahul Bhangade. The AR has referred to the second proviso to section

SHRI MAHESH DEVDUTTA GUPTA,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3),, NAGPUR

In the result, the addition so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

68 of the I.T. Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned authorities failed to consider the explanation of the assessee hence the addition is not justified. (12) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming and upholding the action of AO in considering Rs. 1,00,000/- received from

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

section 143(3) of the Act and proceeded to dispose off the appeal filed by the assessee on merits of the case wherein the learned CIT(A) deleted all the additions, as tabulated above, vide his impugned order dated 18/12/2015 supra. Against this order, the Revenue preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the learned Departmental Representative, Shri Sandipkumar

VIKRAM AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4 (4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year the same may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer

VIKRAM AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year the same may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer

VIKRAM AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal is dismissed

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

section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year the same may be charged to income tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer

AHSAAN QURESHI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

TDS as per provisions of section 194H of the Act. The learned CIT(A) held that the in view of the amendment made in section 40a(ia) of the Act and in section 201(1) of the Act by Finance Act, 2012, has no retrospective effect and the case laws relied upon by the assessee are not relevant with

ASSISTANT COMISSIONER CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHRIGOPAL RAMESHKUMAR SALES PVT. LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS provisions as well as applicability of section 40A(3) so as to warrant any disallowance under those heads as per law. 18. That with respect to the addition of ` 16,42,713, it is the submission of the assessee that the said amount pertains to payments made by farmers/agriculturist to the labourers directly for unloading charges without any recourse

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

TDS of Rs.12,52,000 has been duly deposited with government and hence, disallowance under section 40a(ia) is not warranted. 8 Latitude Infraventures ITA no.349 & 350/Nag./2024 A.Y. 2016–17 & 2017–18 3.5 Therefore, the issues sought to be revised by the learned CIT does not result into any prejudice to the Revenue. Therefore, the twin condition of order

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

TDS of Rs.12,52,000 has been duly deposited with government and hence, disallowance under section 40a(ia) is not warranted. 8 Latitude Infraventures ITA no.349 & 350/Nag./2024 A.Y. 2016–17 & 2017–18 3.5 Therefore, the issues sought to be revised by the learned CIT does not result into any prejudice to the Revenue. Therefore, the twin condition of order

M/S MANASVI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CPC, GAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara

TDS, Ghaziabad [for short "AO" ] for the asesment year s [for short "AY" ] 201 3 - 1 4 to 201 6 - 1 7 . 2. T his seks to adjudicate t he isue of authorisation of levy of fes u/s 234E for default in furnishing statement u/s 20(3) in the absence of enabling provision. 3. Since the facts and isue involved