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

capital gains generated on sale of M/s Shreenath Commercial & Finance Ltd was examined by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Mr Ripu Sudan Kundra vs. ITO (ITA No.2792/Mum/2018 dated 05-10-2021), wherein it was held as under:- Naresh Laxminarayan Grover ITA no.524, 525 & 526/Nag./2024 "We have given our anxious thought and consideration to the matter

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

disallowance of Rs. 40,09,499/- towards cost of indexation, therefore the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) are invalid and bad in law.. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred confirming income shown as business income and not capital gain

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

gains received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the original asset; (b) "long-term specified asset" for making any investment under this section during the period commencing from the 1st day of April, 2006 and ending with the 31st day of March, 2007, means any bond, redeemable after three years and issued on or after

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

disallowed the claim u/s 54F arising on Sale of Factory at Rs.2,15,00,000/- on which Assessee had 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

disallow the claim of the assessee in respectof long term capital gain merely on the basis of information received from

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

disallow the claim of the assessee in respect of long term capital gain merely on the basis of information received

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

disallowed and the entire long term capital gain of Rs.83,85,792/- has to be charged to tax which is added

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

disallowance of long term capital gain on sale of two impugned scrips by AO and confirmed by ld CIT(A) has been

SHABBIR AHMED AHMED ALI,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESMENT CENTRY, DELHI

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

disallowance be modified considerably.” 3. The addition made by Assessing Officer is on account of long term capital gain arising

M/S SHREE TRADERS ,BULDHANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Capital Gain. The AO asked the assessee why the claim of set off of business loss should not be disallowed

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

capital gain from the transaction in shares have been allowed on identical facts in earlier assessment years and that therefore the same could not be disallowed

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

capital gain from the transaction in shares have been allowed on identical facts in earlier assessment years and that therefore the same could not be disallowed

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

capital gain from the transaction in shares have been allowed\non identical facts in earlier assessment years and that therefore the same\ncould not be disallowed

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 of Rs. 49,69,430/- and consequently made the addition of such amount by disallowing the claim of LTCG

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

gain, first on considering sale consideration at `. 70,00,000/– and after reducing investment made as per section 54B, the assessee has suffered capital loss and in second working in considering deemed sale consideration of `. 1.20 crore, the assessee also suffered capital loss. The assessee also furnished detail explanation and submitted that if valuation of property

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]

disallowing and 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] as claimed deserves to be allowed as per law and in the interest

GEETADEVI BADRINARAYAN PANPALIYA,NAGPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

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

Capital Gain 2. Sale Deed Dated 16/01/2014 for ` 1,62,50,000 (To Dilip & Jagruti Doshi) 3. Sale Deed Dated 16/01/2014 for ` 81,25,000 (To Laxminarayan & Chanchal Sharma) 6. The learned Departmental Representative retorted that the details are bereft of any corroborative evidences and are neither reliable nor authentic. 4 Geetadevi Badrinarayan Panpaliya ITA no.477/Nag./2024 7. We have

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

Capital Gain and the claimed deduction under Section 80C was disallowed on assumption basis. The additions confirmed are therefore unjustified