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

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 or any other bank included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. It may be mentioned that all cooperative banks have been excluded from the purview of this provision in view of the position that under section 80P(2)(a)(i), the profits and gains of a co-operative society

SUNIL NARAYANDAS KHATOD ,AKOLA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.134/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sunil Narayndas Khatod, The Commissioner Of Nagpuri Gin Compound, Vs Income Tax-1, Behind Old Cotton Market, Nagpur. Nagpur – 444001. Pan: Adepk3087C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajesh V.Loya – Ca Revenue By Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2023

Price of “Specified 6 Sunil Narayandas Khatod [A] Domestic Transactions”. The Section 92BA was amended by Finance Act, 2017, the pre-amended section 92BA as on 2014 is reproduced here under : 92BA. For the purposes of this section and sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E, “specified domestic transaction” in case of an assessee means any of the following transactions

DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR vs. GOPANI IRON AND POWER(INDIA) PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by revenue are rejected

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shrikhettra Mohan Roy

2) & (3) of Rule 10B. A FAR analysis would show that the transactions of purchase of power from a CPP are different from a transaction of purchase of power from a distribution company. The cost of production of CPP is lesser. The adoption of CPPs sale rate of electricity equal to the power distributor’s sale rate notionally leads

DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR vs. GOPANI IRON AND POWER(INDIA) PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by revenue are rejected

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shrikhettra Mohan Roy

2) & (3) of Rule 10B. A FAR analysis would show that the transactions of purchase of power from a CPP are different from a transaction of purchase of power from a distribution company. The cost of production of CPP is lesser. The adoption of CPPs sale rate of electricity equal to the power distributor’s sale rate notionally leads

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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV 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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV 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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

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

2) of Section 153A would be redundant and/or re- writing the said provisions, which is not permissible under the law. 13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction (supra

NITIN NARAYAN KADAMDHAD,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(5) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao

price. 7. Any other ground of appeal that may be raised from time to time in course of appellate proceedings. PRAYER: To grant the stay against the demand and recovery action to be taken by the jurisdictional assessing officer as the appellant has preferred an appeal before this Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and is confident of getting justice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. SHRI VIVEK VINAYAK VAIDYA, NAGPUR

In the result appeal of the Revenue is Dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.33/Nag/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Vivek Vinayak Vaidya, Commissioner Of Income V 46-B, Krushna Krupa Reat Tax, Circle-4, Nagpur. S Nag Road, Imamwada, Nagpur – 440003. Pan: Aakpv3808M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Atal – Ca Revenue By Shri Rajat Singhal – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/11/2023

2 Vivek Vinayak Vaidya [R] 4.1 It emanates from the Assessment Order dated 31/12/2018 that the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Nagpur(AO) had referred the issue of determination of Arm’s Length Price of Specified Domestic Transaction to the Transfer Pricing officer as per CBDT Circular Number 03/2016. The AO had obtained approval of the Pr.Commissioner

PRITAM SINGH CHARAN SINGH GUJJAR,NAGPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty.] (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. M/S NIHAL GITS PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

transfer pricing adjustment. 2. It is hereby informed that the Board has accepted the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the above mentioned Writ Petition. In view of the acceptance of the above judgment, it is directed that the ratio decidendi of the judgment must be adhered to by the field officers in all cases where this issue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, NAGPUR vs. M/S RAGHAV FINVEST PVT LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

transfer pricing adjustment. 2. It is hereby informed that the Board has accepted the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the above mentioned Writ Petition. In view of the acceptance of the above judgment, it is directed that the ratio decidendi of the judgment must be adhered to by the field officers in all cases where this issue

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. VISHNU GILTS PVT.LT, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

transfer pricing adjustment. 2. It is hereby informed that the Board has accepted the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the above mentioned Writ Petition. In view of the acceptance of the above judgment, it is directed that the ratio decidendi of the judgment must be adhered to by the field officers in all cases where this issue

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.5, NAGPUR vs. M/S AVANTHA HOLDINGS LTD.,, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is unjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for not allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of redemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-5,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is unjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for not allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of redemption due compliance of tax deducted at source