DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

Bogus Clients used for purchasing shares of listed penny stocks for providing Long Term Capital Gain to Beneficiaries. It is submitted

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

purchase of shares. The ITAT also took note of the fact that the entire transaction was through banking channel and the rejection by the AO as well as the CIT(A) treating the transaction as bogus long-term capital gain

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

purchase of shares. The ITAT also took note of the fact that the entire transaction was through banking channel and the rejection by the AO as well as the CIT(A) treating the transaction as bogus long-term capital gain

RAJESH SARDA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Rajesh Sarda, Acit, Central Circle – 2(2), Nagpur 14, Daga Lay–Out, Ambazari Road, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440033. Maharashtra – 440001. [Pan: Ahaps4925M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

purchased at `. 1.00 /- per share and sold @ `. 34/– per share. The assessee also furnished working of capital gain. The assessing officer in para 5.1 of assessment order recorded that Investigation Wing, Kolkata carried out countrywide investigation about the bogus entry of long term

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI SANJAY GAURISHANKAR AGRAWAL , NAGPUR

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

Bogus LTCG Claim (Penny Stock) During the assessment proceedings, it was noticed that assessee had declared long term capital gains of Rs.94,60,989/- and claimed the same as being exempt U/s 10(38) of IT Act 1961. The assessee was asked to submit the details of the long-term capital gain along with documentary evidence of the purchase

DAYAL COTSPIN LIMITED,AKOLA vs. ACIT, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

Long Term Capital Gain or Short Term Capital Gain, receipt and payment of cash against such purchase and sale of shares.  The records of transactions for the purpose of giving the entries of bogus

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

bogus and inflated. Thus, the Id. CIT(A) allowed this expenditure in terms of provision of Section 30 of the I.T. Act. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Department has not filed any supporting evidence/ rebuttal against the written submission Id. AR of the assessee except arguing that

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

bogus and inflated. Thus, the Id. CIT(A) allowed this expenditure in terms of provision of Section 30 of the I.T. Act. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Department has not filed any supporting evidence/ rebuttal against the written submission Id. AR of the assessee except arguing that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR vs. AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

bogus and inflated. Thus, the Id. CIT(A) allowed this expenditure\nin terms of provision of Section 30 of the I.T. Act. Taking into consideration\nthe above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Department\nhas not filed any supporting evidence/ rebuttal against the written submission\nId. AR of the assessee except arguing that

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI SUDHIR RAMSWAROOP SARDA , NAGPUR

long-term capital gains (LTCG) of Rs. 2,47,08,362/- from the sale of shares of Luminarie Technologies Ltd. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this exemption and treated the sale consideration of Rs. 2,52,47,265/- as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging the transaction was a bogus accommodation entry

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

purchasers of the flats. It is beyond the concept of preponderance and human probabilities that a businessman has ventured into a commercial venture only to make loos. [iv] Although such amended provision from 01.10.2014 with reference to Valuation Officer does not require rejection of books of accounts, but there must be some compelling circumstances to refer the valuation particularly when

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

purchasers of the flats. It is beyond the concept of preponderance and human probabilities that a businessman has ventured into a commercial venture only to make loos. [iv] Although such amended provision from 01.10.2014 with reference to Valuation Officer does not require rejection of books of accounts, but there must be some compelling circumstances to refer the valuation particularly when

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

purchasers of the flats. It is beyond the concept of preponderance and human probabilities that a businessman has ventured into a commercial venture only to make loos. [iv] Although such amended provision from 01.10.2014 with reference to Valuation Officer does not require rejection of books of accounts, but there must be some compelling circumstances to refer the valuation particularly when

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

purchasers of the flats. It is beyond the concept of preponderance and human probabilities that a businessman has ventured into a commercial venture only to make loos. [iv] Although such amended provision from 01.10.2014 with reference to Valuation Officer does not require rejection of books of accounts, but there must be some compelling circumstances to refer the valuation particularly when

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

purchasers of the flats. It is beyond the concept of preponderance and human probabilities that a businessman has ventured into a commercial venture only to make loos. [iv] Although such amended provision from 01.10.2014 with reference to Valuation Officer does not require rejection of books of accounts, but there must be some compelling circumstances to refer the valuation particularly when

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

purchasers of the flats. It is beyond the concept of preponderance and human probabilities that a businessman has ventured into a commercial venture only to make loos. [iv] Although such amended provision from 01.10.2014 with reference to Valuation Officer does not require rejection of books of accounts, but there must be some compelling circumstances to refer the valuation particularly when

VISHNUKUMAR RAMSWAROOP AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-4(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

long term capital gain (LTCG) u/s. 10(38) of the Act. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee referring to the plethora of decisions of the coordinate benches as well as Hon'ble High Courts submitted that the genuineness of gain/loss from sale of equity shares of M/s. Kappac Pharma Ltd. has come up for consideration before