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 gain of Rs. 3,11,34,325/earned by the assessee as genuine without considering the fact that Ministry of Corporate Affairs published list of companies declared as shell companies and category marked against Iris Media Works Ltd. was SFIC i.e. Serious Fraud investigation Category and against Trinity Tradelink Limited was ASRC." 1. Based on the information received from Ministry

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

capital gain arise, it is eligible for claiming deduction u/s. 54F. 5 Sanjay Gulabchand Gupta ITA no.210/Nag./2023 4.18 It is here that the assessee's wilful and deliberate tax avoidance comes to the fore. In the aforesaid reply as can be seen from the highlighted portion that the assessee claims that actual construction started during

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

capital gain of Rs.83,85,792/- has to be charged to tax which is added to the returned income of the assessee. Penalty

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

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

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

capital gains on the sale of jewellery ought to be assessed based on the period of holding and in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the interest of justice. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by an amount of Rs. 68,568 on account of interest income

NARESH VASANTRAJ TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

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

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

capital gains on the sale of jewellery ought to be assessed based on the period of holding and in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the interest of justice. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by an amount of Rs. 68,568 on account of interest income

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

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

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

capital gains on the sale of jewellery ought to be assessed based on the period of holding and in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the interest of justice. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by an amount of Rs. 68,568 on account of interest income

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

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

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

capital gains on the sale of jewellery ought to be assessed based on the period of holding and in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the interest of justice. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by an amount of Rs. 68,568 on account of interest income

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

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

capital gain statement that you have sold\nshares of M/s M.V. Pvt Ltd. for total consideration of Rs. 16,45,46,955/- on\n31/12/2011. It is also noticed that the shares were purchased by you on\n31/12/2008 for value of Rs. 647,028/-\n3.\nIn this regard you are requested to submit following information regarding\nM/s

M/S. DATTA DAIRY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,BULDHANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, , KHAMGAON

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

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

capital gain at all has arisen to the Assessee there is no question or occasion for reducing the amount of advance money from cost for which the asset was acquired. Similarly section 56(2)(ix) has also no application as it came into force only on 01.04.2015 and hence not applicable in A.Y.2011-12. Similarly section 56(2)(x) is also

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. The assessee had already disclosed the entire transaction value of sales, amounting to Rs. 10,25,470 plus Rs. 23,00,000 (stamp duty valuation), in the return of income filed in response to notice under Section 148, therefore the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) NFAC is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 8. On the facts

MRS. DEVYANI AJIT MULIK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

penalty based on the protective assessment.” BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE : 2. The assessee has shown long term capital gain

BHAVIKA GUNWANT PATEL,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee are allowed

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

capital gain and claimed the same as exempt for taxation purpose as per the provisions of section 10(38) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was re–opened by the Assessing Officer. On the basis of information available on record and other details, the Assessing Officer has calculated @ 3% of commission and accommodation of ` 3,14,267, i.e., sale price

DAYAL AGRO PRODUCTS LTD,AKOLA vs. JCIT, AKOLA RANGE, AKOLA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

capital short term gain. Bu, till 2018-19 no such set off has been claimed and the carried forward loss must not have for set off after assessment year 2018-19. Thus, the loss so claimed has not been adjusted against any income. There is no loss to the exchequer. At this point of time, we posed a question

NEELAM JANARDHAN RACHALWAR,CHIMUR vs. ITO WARD-2, CHANDRAPUR, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryneelam Janardhan Ito, Ward-2, Chandrapur Rachalwar, Sai Mandir Road, Tilak Ward, Chimur, Vs. Chandrapur, Maharashtra Pan: Adqpr 7539 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/sec. 271D of the Act. In addition to the above, the issue of capital gain arising out of sale

SHRI VISHWAKARAMA JEWELLERS ,AKOLA vs. DCIT AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

capital gains' and (v) 'income from other sources cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon'ble Gujarat High Court the source of gold confiscated was not identifiable and hence

VIDYA PRAMOD PATIL,KHAMGAON vs. JCIT , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain tax also. The Assessing Officer, however, observed that the assessee had accepted cash of ` 8.50 lakh, which is above ` 20,000, which is in contravention of provisions under section 269SS of the Act, and accordingly proceeded to levy penalty

CHANDRAKANT GAJANAN PARADHI,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-3(4), NAGPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrychandrakant Gajanan Ito, Ward-3(4), Nagpur Paradhi, Plot No. 67, Saiecchasadan, Umred Road, Vs. Bahadura, Old Town, Nagpur Pan: Batpp 5726 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain’ and Rs. 17.77 lakhs on account of ‘difference of sale consideration and stamp duty valuation’ u/sec. 50C of the Act. 3. Though, the Assessee being aggrieved, challenged the said additions before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording various opportunities, as it appears from the impugned order, eventually made no compliance and, therefore, Ld.Commissioner by considering the material

TAJSHREE AUTOWHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6 Tajshree Autowheels Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.400/Nag./2024 6. Consequent upon the assessment order so passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee being aggrieved carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 7. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee furnished