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

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. SHRI VINOD BALBHADRA GOENKA,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit Vs. Shri Vinod Balbhadra Goenka Circle-4 247, Nandanvan Layout Nagpur Nagpur Pan No.:Aanpg 6841 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal By Revenue Against Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Nagpur Dated 30/03/2017 In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 4/198/16-17 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue In This Appeal Are As Under:

bogus long term capital gain. The A.O. has computed the aforesaid sum as 5% of sale proceeds of share reflected in books of account. 5. During the previous year relevant to Asstt. Year 2014-15, the assessee has sold properties and surplus arising on the same has been declared as long term capital gain. The investment made by assessee

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. SHIKHA INDRAKUMAR AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

long term capital gain reported by the assessee is bogus in nature. We further noticed that the Investigation Report prepared by Investigation Wing, Kolkata is general in nature with regard to the modus operandi adopted in manipulation of prices of certain shares and generation of bogus capital gains. Statements of persons recorded by Department at Kolkata

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

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

gain is on the revenue account? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is right in deleting disallowance of premium payable on zero percent fully redeemable non- convertible marketable debentures of Rs. 3,63,01,370/- without appreciating the fact that the same does not amount

DCIT-CC-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. INDRAKUMAR GHISULAL AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

long term capital gain reported by the assessee is bogus in nature. We further noticed that the Investigation Report prepared by Investigation Wing, Kolkata is general in nature with regard to the modus operandi (Indrakumar Ghisulal Agrawal) adopted in manipulation of prices of certain shares and generation of bogus capital gains. Statements of persons recorded by Department at Kolkata

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

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

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

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

PRADEEP DATTATRAYA BANGINWAR,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 28/Nag/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pradeep Dattatraya Banginwar, At- Trimurti Sales, Datta Chowk, Yavatmal-445 001. Pan : Abcpb5111C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.M. Gandhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :17.02.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2022

bogus claim of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 14.75 lac on sale of one lac shares of M/s Comfort Intech Ltd., a penny stock company, his case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In compliance, the assesee filed his return of income declaring an income

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 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

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