SANJAY GULABCHAND GUPTA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

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

deduction u/s 54F is available in respect of Capital Gain arising from sale of more than one Long Term Capital

SHRI DEEPAK SURESH GADGE,,NAGPUR vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1 , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

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

Gains‘ whereby the full consideration received as a result of transfer of the capital asset should be taken into consideration out of which the appellant is entitled to deduction

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

gains. 14. I.T.A. No. 79/Nag/2010 (ITAT, Nagpur) Plastic Surge Industries Pvt Ltd –Vs- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 15. I.T.A. No. 6429/Mum/2009 (ITAT, Mumbai) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax –Vs- Naishadh V. Vachharajani 16. I.T.A. No. 961/Mum/2010 (ITAT, Mumbai) Nagindas P. Sheth (HUF) –Vs- ACIT 17. (2006) 6 SOT 0247 (ITAT, Mumbai) Mukesh R. Marolia –Vs- Additional Commissioner Of Income

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

gains.\n14. I.T.A. No. 79/Nag/2010 (ITAT, Nagpur) Plastic Surge Industries Pvt Ltd -Vs- Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax\n15. I.T.A. No. 6429/Mum/2009 (ITAT, Mumbai) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax –Vs- Naishadh V. Vachharajani\n16. I.T.A. No. 961/Mum/2010 (ITAT, Mumbai) Nagindas P. Sheth (HUF) –Vs- ACIT\n17. (2006) 6 SOT 0247 (ITAT, Mumbai) Mukesh R. Marolia -Vs- Additional Commissioner Of Income

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

deduction under section 54F of the Act against the capital gain on transfer of long term capital asset, on the ground

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.2, NAGPUR vs. SHRI GOVINDDAS GOVERDHAN DAGA, NAGPUR

In the result, cross-objection filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Gains\n*15,354\n16,36,74,245\n16,36,89,599\n3.\nThe assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54F, being investment made in\n\"Capital

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

deducted at source has been made by appellant. On above undisputed factual position relief granted by CIT(A) in the case of appellant cannot be faulted. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances and evidence on record we find no merit in appeal of revenue. Thus Ground No. 4 and 5 of the Revenue are dismissed.”\n8. The facts

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

deducted at source has been made by appellant. On above undisputed factual position relief granted by CIT(A) in the case of appellant cannot be faulted. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances and evidence on record we find no merit in appeal of revenue. Thus Ground No. 4 and 5 of the Revenue are dismissed.”\n8. The facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. AAKAR HOTELS, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain,\nwithout appreciating the fact that the addition of Rs.2,67,14,897/- made by\nthe AO was supported with finding that sale deed/assignment deed was duly\nregistered on 29.03.2016 and the purchaser deducted

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

deducted at source has been made by\nappellant. On above undisputed factual position relief granted by CIT(A) in the\ncase of appellant cannot be faulted. Considering the totality of facts and\ncircumstances and evidence on record we find no merit in appeal of revenue.\nThus Ground No. 4 and 5 of the Revenue are dismissed."\n8. The facts

SMT. VEENA MAHESHWARI ,NAGPUR vs. DY.C.I.T,CIRCLE-1,NAGPUR , NAGPUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.323/Nag/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Smt.Veena Maheshwari, The Dy.Cit, Circle-1, 2Nd Floor, 52/2, Kinkhede Lay Vs. Nagpur. Out, Temple Road, Nagpur – 440001. Pan: Abxpm 3150 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri G.J.Ninawe – Dr Date Of Hearing 16/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2023 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-1, Nagpur’S Dated 11.05.2017 In Case No.Cit(A)-1/148/2014-15, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

capital gains account, claim of deduction made u/s 54 has been given facade of capital gains earning when they, in fact

SHRIRAM NARAYAN TIKDE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX, WARD 4(4) , NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

capital gains of Rs.73,041 offered by the assessee. In doing so, the learned AO erred in not providing benefit of indexed cost of improvement of Rs.4,55,185 incurred during FY 2006-07, brokerage fees on sale of plot of Rs.25,000 and deduction

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

capital receipt and deducted the same while computing the income under the head 'Profit and Gains of Business or Profession

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

capital receipt and deducted the same while computing the income under the head 'Profit and Gains of Business or Profession

FATTESING PUNAJI DHABRE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX – 2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

capital gain with computation and deduction / exemption with supporting evidence as well as justification of cash deposit of `. 6,00,000/–, copy

SMT . RAJANI SURENDRA ADAMANE ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), NAGPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrysmt. Rajani Surendra Ito, Ward-4(4), Nagpur Adamane, Plot No.30, Near Ghodke School Surendra Vs. Nagar, Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur-440024. Pan: Alapa 9897 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain’. 3 The Ld. AO, ultimately, by considering the sale consideration of the property at Rs. 53,52,000/- as per stamp duty valuation in view of section 50C of the Act and while deducting

SIMA RAVISINGH KACHHAWAH,UMRER vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadalesima Ravisingh Kachhawah, Girad Road, Om Nagar Umrer, ……………. Appellant Nagpur- 441203 Maharastra, Pan – Aqmpk2899K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

deduction of Rs. 75,600 claimed under Section 80C. This addition was made despite the assessee having declared the entire transaction value/gross receipts of Rs. 33,25,470/- as turnover under Section 44AD from the real estate business in the return of income. The addition was unjustifiably made under Section 50C as Long-Term Capital Gain

ANIL SHANKAR PALEWAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.36/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anil Shankar Palewar, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.219, Suyog Nagar, V Ward-5(1), Nagpur. Nagpur – 440015. S Pan: Abzpp 8221 A Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Ar Revenue By Smt. Rashmi Mathur – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax[Nfac], Delhi Dated 26.12.2021Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Grossly Erred In Disallowing & The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Grossly Erred In Confirming The Denial Of Benefit Of Exemption Under Section 54Ec Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Claimed By The Appellant In His Return Of Income. The Exemption Under Section 54Ec Anil Shankar Palewar [A]

capital 7 Anil Shankar Palewar [A] gains qua impugned amount of Rs 50 lakhs. Therefore on this aspect, assessee has to succeed. Thus, this Ground of appeal is allowed.” 6. In the case under consideration also, assessee has claimed that assessee has received the consideration after the Development Agreement dated 26.06.2014. We have already reproduced all the dates. There